SNIDER v. GILMORE et al

Filing 82

MEMORANDUM ORDER. Plaintiff's Objections, (Doc. 80), are OVERRULED in part, and DENIED AS MOOT in part. Plaintiff's Discovery Motion, (Doc. 70), and Stay Motion, (Doc. 71), are DENIED and the Orders at Doc. 73 and 74 are ADOPTED as Opinions of the District Court. Plaintiff's request for additional time to Amend his Complaint is GRANTED, and he shall file an Amended Complaint on or before 11/2/19. See contents of this filing. Signed by Judge Cathy Bissoon on 10/3/19. (wss)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JOEL SNIDER,
Plaintiff,
v.
ROBERT GILMORE, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No.18-735
Judge Cathy Bissoon
Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan

MEMORANDUM ORDER
This case has been referred to United States Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan for
pretrial proceedings in accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(l)(A) and (B),
and Local Rule of Civil Procedure 72.
On September 6, 2019, Magistrate Judge Lenihan issued Orders, (Docs. 73 and 74),
denying Plaintiff Joel Snider’s (hereinafter, “Mr. Snider’s” or “Plaintiff’s”) Motion to Conduct
Discovery (hereinafter “Discovery Motion,” Doc. 70) and Motion to Stay (hereinafter “Stay
Motion,” Doc. 71). Magistrate Judge Lenihan also issued an Order on September 20th, granting
Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to Amend his Complaint. (Doc. 79.) That Order set a
deadline of October 2, 2019 for Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint, and indicated that no
further extensions would be granted. (Id.)
On October 3, 2019, the Clerk’s office entered Plaintiff’s Objections to these Orders,
entitled “Plaintiff’s Objections to Denial of Leave to Engage in Discovery, Denial of Stay,
Denial of Motion to Merge Cases, and Denial of Further Time Extension for Submitting an
Amended Complaint,” (hereinafter, “Objections,” Doc. 80). The undersigned notes that
Magistrate Judge Lenihan has not denied Plaintiff’s Motion to Merge Cases, (Doc. 67), which

remains pending, and that she granted his Motion for Extension of Time, (Doc. 78). As such,
Plaintiff’s Objections related to those Motions are moot and overruled, respectively.
As for Plaintiff’s Objections related to the denial of his Discovery Motion and Stay
Motion, the Court has conducted a de novo review of the Magistrate Judge Lenihan’s Orders,
along with the pleadings and documents in this case, including Plaintiff’s Objections.
In his Objections, Plaintiff has presented no additional argument beyond what is in his
Discovery Motion and Stay Motion. In those documents, he argues discovery is necessary for
him to meaningfully respond to Defendants’ pending Motion to Dismiss, (Doc. 51), and that this
case must be stayed while such discovery takes place. The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s
specific requests for discovery and agrees with the Magistrate Judge Lenihan that Plaintiff’s
arguments relate to legal, not factual issues, and that they can be addressed in his Response or by
amendment without additional discovery. Thus, as it is clear that no part of Magistrate Judge
Lenihan’s Orders are clearly erroneous or contrary to law, the Court will adopt her Orders on the
Discovery Motion and the Stay Motion, (Docs. 73 and 74).
A substantial portion of Plaintiff’s Objections are dedicated to his disability and the
impairment of his functioning in recent days, including difficulty with concentration and
problems with sleep. (Objections at 5–8.) Plaintiff advises that these difficulties render him
unable to comply with the October 2, 2019 deadline for his filing of an Amended Complaint.
(see Doc. 79.) However, he says repeatedly that he “is confident he can meet a Nov. 2, 2019
deadline.” (E.g., id. at 10). Crediting Plaintiff’s representations regarding both the impairments
caused by his disabilities and what accommodation he needs form the Court to overcome them,
Plaintiff’s deadline to amend his pleadings will be extended to his requested deadline of
November 2, 2019. No additional extensions are contemplated.

Accordingly, it hereby is ORDERED that Plaintiff Joel Snider’s Objections, (Doc. 80),
are OVERRULED in part, and DENIED AS MOOT in part; his Discovery Motion, (Doc. 70),
and Stay Motion, (Doc. 71), are DENIED; and the Orders at Doc. 73 and 74 are ADOPTED as
Opinions of the District Court. Plaintiff’s request for additional time to Amend his Complaint is
GRANTED, and he shall file an Amended Complaint on or before November 2, 2019. 1
IT IS SO ORDERED.

October 3, 2019

s\Cathy Bissoon
Cathy Bissoon
United States District Judge

cc (via ECF email notification):
All Counsel of Record
cc (via First-Class U.S. Mail):
JOEL SNIDER
KZ-8124
SCI Houtzdale
PO Box 1000
Houtzdale, PA 16698

1

Subsequent to the filing of his Objections, Plaintiff also filed a separate Motion to Extend Time
to Amend Complaint, (Doc. 81). The Court will deny that Motion as moot, consistent with this
Memorandum Order.