The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ALTON D. BROWN, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) Civil No. 16-cv-1680
)
WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, ef al., )
)
Defendants. )
ORDER
Before the Court is Alton D. Brown’s “Appeal of the U.S. Magistrate’s 5/12/2021 Order
and All Related Orders.” ECF No. 310. Mr. Brown requests review of various aspects of the
Magistrate Judge’s management of discovery as well as the manner Defendants communicate
with, and provide documents to, Mr. Brown. The Court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s
Orders referred to by Mr. Brown. All of the Orders are non-dispositive.! The Orders concern
routine discovery issues and routine case management of the case that is committed to the
discretion of the Magistrate Judge. The Court finds that the Magistrate Judge’s Orders are not
clearly erroneous, contrary to law, or an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, Mr. Brown’s Appeal
is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 2nd day of June 2021.
Deprtp.
Marilyn J. Hora
United States District Court Judge
' The Federal Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 631-639, provides two separate standards for judicial review of a
magistrate judge’s decision: (1) “de novo,” for magistrate resolution of dispositive matters, 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(B)-(C), accord Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) (referring to “a pretrial matter dispositive of a claim or defense”), and
(ii) “clearly erroneous or contrary to law,” for magistrate resolution of nondispositive matters, 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(A), accord Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) (referring to “a pretrial matter not dispositive of a party’s claim or
defense”). Nondispositive orders will not be disturbed unless such is found to be clearly erroneous or contrary to
law. A finding is clearly erroneous “when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire
evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Anderson v. City of
Bessemer, 470 U.S. 564, 573 (1985) (citing United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364 (1948)).
“Where a magistrate sudge is authorized to exercise his or her discretion, the decision will be reversed only for an
abuse of that discretion.” Cooper Hosp./Univ. Med. Ctr. v. Sullivan, 183 F.R.D. 119, 127 (D.N.J. 1998).
cc: Alton D. Brown, pro se
DL-4686
SCI Fayette
48 Overlook Drive
LaBelle, PA 15450-1050
(via U.S. First Class Mail)