Luckerman v. Narragansett Indian Tribe
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,
C.A. No. 13-185 S
NARRAGANSETT INDIAN TRIBE,
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
WILLIAM E. SMITH, United States District Judge.
(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.
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
Almond did address the issue of whether the Tribal Court is
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.
evidence in the record, the Court finds that Magistrate Judge
“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).
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?