BRACEY v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et al

Filing 176

ORDER denying appeals from Magistrate Judge's Rulings: This Court having considered Plaintiff's appeals (at Doc. Nos. 134 and 151 ) and finding no abuse of the Magistrate Judge's discretion in regards to her rulings of December 19, 2012 132 and January 15, 2013 137 , and further finding that the Magistrate Judge did not commit clear error or otherwise act contrary to law, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), therefore, IT IS ORDERED this 8th Day of May, 2013 that the instant appeals shall be, and hereby are, DENIED and the aforementioned orders of the Magistrate Judge shall be, and hereby are, AFFIRMED. Signed by Chief Judge Sean J. McLaughlin on 05/8/2013. (kas)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
COREY BRACEY,
Plaintiff,
v.

SUPERINTENDENT HARLOW, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:11-cv-4-SJM-MPK

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Pending before the Court in the above-captioned matter are two appeals from the
Magistrate Judge’s rulings. Specifically, Plaintiff has filed an appeal (styled as
“objections”) [134] to the Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum Order of December 19, 2012
[132] denying without prejudice Plaintiff’s Motion for Spoliation Hearing and/or
Sanctions [127] and directing the Defendants to file appropriate affidavits concerning
the custody and control of certain video surveillance evidence. Additionally, Plaintiff has
filed an appeal (against styled as “objections”) [151] to the Magistrate Judge’s
Memorandum Order of January 15, 2013 [137], which denied as moot Plaintiff’s Motion
for Sanctions/Extension of Time/ and Motion to Compel [131] and further denied as
frivolous and spurious Plaintiff’s Motion for Discovery and/or Spoliation Sanctions [133].
In accordance with the deferential standard of review established by 28 U.S.C.
§636, a “[d]istrict [c]ourt may reverse a magistrate judge’s ruling regarding a nondispositive issue such as discovery only if it is ‘clearly erroneous or contrary to law.’” It
is well settled that “Magistrate Judges have broad discretion to manage their docket and
Page 1 of 2

to decide discovery issues.” See Gerald Chamales Corp. v. Oki Data Americas, Inc.,
247 F.R.D. 453, 454 (D.N.J. 2007) (citing cases). See Ball v. C.O. Struthers, Civil No.
1:11-CV-1265, 2011 WL 4891026 at *1 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 13, 2011) (“District courts provide
magistrate judge’s with particularly broad discretion in resolving discovery disputes.”)
(citing Farmers & Merchs. Nat’l Bank v. San Clemente Fin. Group Sec., Inc., 174 F.R.D.
572, 585 (D.N.J. 1997)). “When a magistrate judge’s decision involves a discretionary
(discovery) matter..., ‘courts in this district have determined that the clearly erroneous
standard implicitly becomes an abuse of discretion standard.’” Ball, supra, at *1
(quoting Saldi v. Paul Revere Life Ins. Co., 224 F.R.D. 169, 174 (E.D. Pa. 2004)).
This Court having considered Plaintiff’s appeals (at Doc. Nos. [134] and [151])
and finding no abuse of the Magistrate Judge’s discretion in regards to her rulings of
December 19, 2012 [132] and January 15, 2013 [137], and further finding that the
Magistrate Judge did not commit clear error or otherwise act contrary to law, see 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), therefore, IT IS ORDERED this 8th Day of May, 2013 that the
instant appeals shall be, and hereby are, DENIED and the aforementioned orders of the
Magistrate Judge shall be, and hereby are, AFFIRMED.

s/

Sean J. McLaughlin
SEAN J. McLAUGHLIN
Chief U.S. District Judge

cm:

All counsel of record.

Page 2 of 2