Luckerman v. Narragansett Indian Tribe

Filing 61

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 55 Appeal of Magistrate Judge Decision to District Court filed by Douglas J. Luckerman. So Ordered by Chief Judge William E. Smith on 12/22/2016. (Jackson, Ryan)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
___________________________________
)
DOUGLAS J. LUCKERMAN,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
C.A. No. 13-185 S
)
NARRAGANSETT INDIAN TRIBE,
)
)
Defendant.
)
___________________________________)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
WILLIAM E. SMITH, United States District Judge.
Plaintiff
represented
brought

suit

Douglas

Defendant
against

Luckerman,
Narragansett
the

Tribe

an

attorney

Indian
for

who

Tribe

breach

of

formerly
(“Tribe”),
contract.

(Complaint, ECF No. 1.) This Court determined that the doctrine
of tribal exhaustion applied to Plaintiff’s claim and stayed
that action pending consideration by the Tribal Court. (ECF No.
16.)

Plaintiff has filed a Motion to Vacate, arguing that “[i]t

has now become clear that the Tribe does not have a properly
constituted and functioning tribal court . . . .” (Pl.’s Mot. 1,
ECF No. 45.) Magistrate Judge Almond denied Plaintiff’s Motion
without prejudice. (Mem. and Order, ECF No. 53.) Plaintiff has

now filed an Objection to Magistrate Judge Almond’s decision.
(ECF No. 55.)1
Where, as here, the Court is confronted with an Objection
to a Magistrate Judge’s ruling on a non-dispositive matter, the
Court will “modify or set aside any part of the order that is
clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72.
Having reviewed Magistrate Judge Almond’s Memorandum and Order,
as well as the Parties’ submissions, the Court finds no such
error.

Contrary

to

Plaintiff’s

arguments,

Magistrate

Judge

Almond did address the issue of whether the Tribal Court is
functioning

and

capable

of

addressing

the

matter

before

it.

Magistrate Judge Almond specifically determined that Plaintiff
had not made a “sufficient showing” that “the Tribe does not
have a properly constituted or functioning Tribal Court.” (Mem.
and

Order

3,

ECF

No.

53;

see

also

id.

n.3.)

Based

on

the

evidence in the record, the Court finds that Magistrate Judge
Almond’s

determination

is

neither

“clearly

erroneous”

nor

“contrary to law.” Plaintiff’s Objection (ECF No. 55) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

William E. Smith
United States District Judge
Date: December 22, 2016
Defendant has submitted a Response to that Objection (ECF
No. 59), and Plaintiff has submitted a Reply (ECF No. 60).
1

2