BROWN v. WOLF et al

Filing 656

MEMORANDUM ORDER denying ALTON D. BROWN's 652 Motion for Reconsideration of the District Court's 646 Order dated 9/7/23, which ruled on Plaintiff's 643 Motion for Extension of Time to File Objections. Signed by Judge Marilyn J. Horan on 9/29/23. (rtw)

Case 2:16-cv-01081-MJH-CRE Document 656 Filed 09/29/23 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ALTON D. BROWN,
Plaintiff,
v.
TOM WOLF, et. al,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil No. 16-1081

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Presently before the Court is Alton D. Brown’s “Motion for Reconsideration” of the
District Court’s Order dated 9/7/23. ECF No. 652. The Court’s September 7, 2023 Order denied
Mr. Brown’s Motion requesting an extension of time to file objections to four Magistrate Judge
discovery Orders. Order, Sept. 7, 2023, ECF No. 646. Mr. Brown’s Motion requesting an
extension was filed on August 31, 2023. In denying the Motion, the Court highlighted the fact
that the discovery deadline had been extended several times and that discovery had closed on
August 4, 2023. The Court found that three of the Magistrate Judge’s discovery Orders were
moot and that the final discovery Order was not clearly erroneous, contrary to law, or an abuse of
discretion.
The Motion for Reconsideration
In the present request for reconsideration, Mr. Brown states that the District Court’s
September 7, 2023 Order denied him “the opportunity to make crucial discovery needed to
prosecute the matter efficiently”. ECF No. 652, at 3. Mr. Brown asserts that the Magistrate
Judge’s discovery orders are “schemes designed to prevent [Mr. Brown] from conducting any
discovery.” Id. Similarly, he states that “he has been denied the opportunity to make discovery.”
Id. at 4. He seeks reconsideration of the Court’s September 7, 2023 Order, in part, because

Case 2:16-cv-01081-MJH-CRE Document 656 Filed 09/29/23 Page 2 of 3

although the discovery deadline has expired, Mr. Brown is still permitted to appeal the
Magistrate Judge’s discovery Orders. Id. at 2. He states that his “aim is to preserve appealable
issues and expose [the] Judge’s bias against Plaintiff and favor for the Defendants.” Id. at 3. He
asks the Court “to allow him to at least get his Objections on record for appeal purposes, which
would afford him to reverse the fundamental injustice of being denied discovery, in violation of
the 14th Amendment” and the “denial of due process and equal protection.” Id. at 5.
Discussion
Mr. Brown seeks reconsideration of the Court’s September 7, 2023 Order. Mr. Brown’s
multiple appeals and objections to the Magistrate Judge’s discovery Orders demonstrate that he
seeks a ruling from this Court overruling the Magistrate Judge’s management of discovery.
Furthermore, Mr. Brown wants this Court to Order additional time for him to engage in
discovery. This Court will not overrule discovery Orders where there is no evidence that the
Magistrate Judge has committed error or abused her discretion.
The discretion afforded a District Court or a Magistrate Judge in managing discovery is
broad. “Rulings regarding discovery matters are consigned to the court’s discretion and
judgment.” Doe v. Schuylkill Cnty. Courthouse, 343 F.R.D. 289, 293 (M.D. Pa. 2023). In
general, a district “court’s decisions regarding the conduct of discovery will be disturbed only
upon a showing of abuse of that discretion.” Schuylkill Cnty. Courthouse, 343 F.R.D. at 293
(citing Marroquin-Manriquez v. I.N.S., 699 F.2d 129, 134 (3d Cir. 1983)). “This far-reaching
[district court] discretion extends to rulings by United States Magistrate Judges on discovery
matters.” Schuylkill Cnty. Courthouse, 343 F.R.D. at 293. Upon review of a magistrate judge
discovery ruling, “district courts provide magistrate judges with particularly broad discretion in
resolving discovery disputes.” Id. A “magistrate judge’s discovery ruling ‘is entitled to great

2

Case 2:16-cv-01081-MJH-CRE Document 656 Filed 09/29/23 Page 3 of 3

deference and is reversible only for abuse of discretion.’” Id. (quoting Kresefky v. Panasonic
Commc'ns and Sys. Co., 169 F.R.D. 54, 64 (D.N.J. 1996). In light of the broad discretion
granted to District Courts and Magistrate Judges in the management of a case and, in particular,
in managing discovery matters, the Court declines to reconsider its prior Order finding that
Magistrate Judge Eddy’s discovery Orders are not an abuse of discretion and are not clearly
erroneous.

And NOW, this 29th day of September 2023, it is ORDERED that Alton D. Brown’s
Motion for Reconsideration, ECF No. 652, is DENIED. The District Court declines to
reconsider its September 7, 2023 Order.

__s/Marilyn J. Horan__________
Marilyn J. Horan
United States District Court Judge
cc:

Alton D. Brown, pro se
DL-4686
SCI Fayette
48 Overlook Drive
LaBelle, PA 15450-1050

3