Brown v. Mace-Liebson et al

Filing 63

MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry). Signed by Honorable Edwin M. Kosik on 10/27/2015. (emksec, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
____________________________________
:
GREGORY BROWN,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
:
CLINICAL DIR. MACE-LIEBSON, et al. :
:
Defendants.
:
____________________________________:

Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-623
(Judge Kosik)

MEMORANDUM
Before the Court are Plaintiff’s Objections to a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”)
issued by United States Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson. For the reasons which follow, we
will adopt the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that Plaintiff’s Motion for an Order Allowing
Adequate Law Library Time be denied.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff is a federal prisoner who has sued correctional staff, pro se, alleging a variety of
Bivens claims (Doc. 1). Pending in the Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss, or in the
alternative, motion for summary judgment (Doc. 29). Plaintiff has opposed the motion and filed
a motion for greater law library access (Doc. 47). The parties fully briefed this motion. On
September 22, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued an R&R (Doc. 58), recommending that
Plaintiff’s motion be denied.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
When objections are filed to an R&R of a Magistrate Judge, the Court must make a de
novo determination of those portions of the report to which objections are made. 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1); see also Sample v. Diecks, 885 F.2d 1099, 1106 n.3 (3d Cir. 1989). In doing so, the
Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made
by the Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Local Rule 72.31. Although the Court’s review
is de novo, the Court is permitted to rely upon the Magistrate Judge’s proposed recommendations
to the extent the Court, in the exercise of sound discretion, deems proper. See U.S. v. Raddatz,
447 U.S. 667, 676 (1980); see also Goney v. Clark, 749 F.2d 5, 7 (3d Cir. 1984).
III. DISCUSSION
The Magistrate Judge construed Plaintiff’s motion concerning his law library access, as a
motion for a preliminary injunction, because the motion seeks some form of mandatory relief
from prison officials. The Magistrate Judge examined Plaintiff’s motion under the preliminary
injunction standards, and found that Plaintiff had not shown a reasonable probability of success
on the merits, nor an irreparable harm justifying a preliminary injunction.
Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge construing the motion as a preliminary
injunction, and seeks to clarify why he filed the instant motion. Plaintiff asserts that he filed the
motion not for greater access to the law library, but for the Court to inform prison officials that
this Court’s Local Rules control filing deadlines and that the Court does not issue a separate
order stating what the deadlines are to file supporting or opposing briefs to motions.
The Court first notes that this is not the first time this issue has been brought to the
Court’s attention. This Court’s Local Rules, particularly in the instant action, Rules 7.5 and 7.6,
give a party fourteen (14) days to file a brief in support of, or a brief in opposition to, a motion.
The consequence for the failure to do so is grave. Local Rule 7.5 states, “Within fourteen (14)
days after the filing of any motion, the party filing the motion shall file a brief in support of the
2

motion . . . . If a supporting brief is not filed within the time provided in this rule the motion shall
be deemed to be withdrawn.” (Emphasis added). Local Rule 7.6 states,
Any party opposing any motion, other than a motion for summary judgment,
shall file a brief in opposition within fourteen (14) days after service of the movant’s
brief, or, if a brief in support of the motion is not required under these rules, within
seven (7) days after service of the motion. Any party who fails to comply with this
rule shall be deemed not to oppose such motion.
A brief in opposition to a motion for summary judgment and LR 56.1
responsive statement, together with any transcripts, affidavits or other relevant
documentation, shall be filed within twenty-one (21) days after service of the
movant’s brief.
Rule 7.6, U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania Rules of Court (Emphasis
added). Additionally, and apparently what the Plaintiff seeks to bring to light, is that the Court
does not issue a separate scheduling order for briefing deadlines, as the parties are expected to
comply with the Rules of Court.
The Magistrate Judge did correctly interpreted Plaintiff’s motion for adequate law library
access. Additionally, Plaintiff does not claim that his access to the law library has been
inadequate. Therefore, we will deny Plaintiff’s motion.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, we will adopt the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation
and deny Plaintiff’s Motion for an Order Allowing Adequate Law Library Time. The Court also
clarifies that all parties, even pro se inmates, are required to comply with the filing deadlines
found in the Court’s Local Rules, and that the Court does not issue a separate scheduling order.

3