BRACEY v. RENDELL et al

Filing 106

MEMORANDUM ORDER: Plaintiff's Objections (styled as an appeal) (Doc. 103) are OVERRULED, and the Memorandum Order of Judge Kelly dated September 12, 2013 (Doc. 98) is AFFIRMED. Signed by Judge Cathy Bissoon on 10/11/2013. (rlh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
COREY BRACEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
SECRETARY JEFFREY BEARD, et al.,
Defendants.

)
) Civil Action No. 1:11-cv-217
)
)
) Judge Cathy Bissoon
) Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly
)
)
)

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Plaintiff, Corey Bracey, appeals the Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum Order (ECF No.
98), denying his Motion for Extension/Stay of Discovery Schedule (ECF No. 94). For the
reasons that follow, the Magistrate Judge’s Order will be affirmed.
Plaintiff is an inmate at the State Correctional Institution (“SCI”) at Graterford, and
brings this civil rights action against numerous officials of the Pennsylvania Department of
Corrections (among others), claiming that his rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth
Amendments were violated when he was illegally housed in the Special Management Unit at SCI
Fayette and then, on the basis of that improper designation, improperly placed on the Restricted
Release List at SCI Fayette and other state correctional facilities. The matter was referred to
Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly for pretrial proceedings in accordance with the Magistrates
Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(A) and (B), and Rule 72 of the Local Rules for Magistrates.
On September 9, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Extension/Stay of Discovery
Schedule. (ECF No. 94). Magistrate Judge Kelly denied the Plaintiff’s Motion in an Order on
September 12, 2013. (ECF No. 98). This appeal followed. (ECF No. 103).

If a party is dissatisfied with a Magistrate Judge’s non-dispositive ruling, it may appeal to
the District Judge, who may reconsider and set aside the ruling only if it is “clearly erroneous or
contrary to law.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); see also FED. R. CIV. P. 72(a); LCvR 72(C)(2);
Cipollone v. Liggett Group Inc., 785 F.2d 1108 (3d Cir. 1986). “A decision is clearly erroneous
if the reviewing court is left with the definite and firm conviction based on all the evidence that
the [lower] court made a mistake.” United States v. Perez, 280 F.3d 318, 351 (3d Cir. 2002). A
magistrate judge’s denial of a request for an extension of discovery is a non-dispositive ruling
subject to this deferential standard. See Pennsylvania, Dept. of Environmental Protection v.
Allegheny Energy, Inc., 2007 WL 2253554 at *1 (W.D.Pa. 2007).
In her decision denying the Plaintiff’s Motion for an Extension of the Discovery
deadlines, Magistrate Judge Kelly reasoned:
… Plaintiff has not indicated that any discovery requests have not been complied
with or what discovery is needed that has not been completed, and no motion to
compel has been filed. Indeed, the record demonstrates, and Plaintiff appears to
acknowledge, that he has been provided with the discovery he has requested to the
extent he is entitled to it. See ECF No. 94, ¶¶ 2, 3. ECF Nos. 88, 89, 90.
Plaintiff’s failure to provide the Court with any explanation as to why he has not
requested the discovery at issue or indicated what that discovery is or how it is
relevant to his case, compels the Court to deny the Motion.
(ECF No. 98 at 2).
Having carefully reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Order and the documents cited therein,
and the Plaintiff’s objections thereto, the Court concludes that Magistrate Judge Kelly’s Order
was neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s objections (styled
as an Appeal) (ECF No. 103) are OVERRULED, and the Order of Magistrate Judge Kelly dated
September 12, 2013 (ECF No. 98) is AFFIRMED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

October 11, 2013

cc (via ECF email notification):
All counsel of record
cc (via First-Class U.S. Mail):
Corey Bracey
GS4754
SCI Graterford
P.O. Box 244
Graterford, PA 19426-0244

s/Cathy Bissoon
Cathy Bissoon
United States District Judge