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, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
ORDER
Before the Court is Alton D. Brown’s Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s Order of
June 2, 2021. ECF No. 316. The Court’s June 2, 2021 Order, denying Mr. Brown’s Appeal of
several of the Magistrate Judge’s trial management Orders, stated as follows:
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.
ECF No. 312, at 1.
A proper motion for reconsideration “must rely on one of three grounds: (1) an
intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; or (3) the
need to correct clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice.” Lazaridis v. Wehmer,
591 F.3d 666, 669 (3d Cir. 2010) (citing North River Ins. Co. v. CIGNA Reinsurance
Co., 52 F.3d 1194, 1218 (3d Cir. 1995)). “Mere dissatisfaction with a court’s ruling is
not a proper basis for reconsideration.” Prusky v. Phoenix Life Ins. Co., 2003 WL
22597610, *2 (E.D.Pa. Nov 04, 2003), citing Glendon Energy Co. v. Borough of
Glendon, 836 F.Supp. 1109, 1122 (E.D.Pa.1993). “Motions for reconsideration are not to
be used to reargue or relitigate matters already decided.” Haymond v. Lundy, 205
F.Supp.2d 390, 395 (E.D.Pa. 2002).
Mr. Brown appears to argue that reconsideration is warranted because there is a
need to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice. He complains that the
Court erred in not individually addressing each aspect of his arguments on appeal
challenging the Magistrate Judge’s Orders. He also argues that the decisions of the
Magistrate Judge are dispositive matters and therefore require that this Court apply a de
novo review.
Upon reviewing the Magistrate Judge’s Orders again, in light of Mr. Brown’s
Appeal and Motion for Reconsideration, the Court concludes that such Orders concern
non-dispositive pretrial matters that are not dispositive of a claim or defense of a party.
Fed. Rule. Civ. Proc 72 (a) (a “pretrial matter not dispositive of a party’s claim or
defense” referred to a Magistrate Judge for decision, is reviewed by the District Court to
“modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law”).
The Court understands that Mr. Brown asserts, based on unsupported allegations, that
both the Magistrate Judge and Defendants are proceeding through the pretrial discovery
process in a manner designed to unfairly, and in some cases unlawfully, tilt the scales in
favor of Defendants. From that premise he asserts that it logically follows that such
actions are dispositive of his claims and therefore this Court should conduct de novo
review of the Magistrate Judge’s decisions. The Court disagrees with such logic.
The Court can discern no basis for reconsideration of its June 2, 2021 Order. As
stated, the Orders appealed from are non-dispositive pretrial matters. This Court need
not, and should not, delve into and micro-manage the Magistrate Judge’s individual
pretrial decisions rendered during the course of managing this case. Thus, the Court will
not address the Magistrate Judge’s alleged individual actions taken during the course of
deciding non-dispositive pretrial management issues, beyond the requirement that the
Court review such decisions for clear error or that are contrary to law. The Court
understands that Mr. Brown believes that the Magistrate Judge is biased against him and
that Defendants are manipulating their positions of authority to alter or destroy evidence
or otherwise hamper Mr. Brown’s ability to fairly litigate his claims. Our review of the
record, however, shows no support for such serious allegations of misconduct. Mr.
Brown also continually demands that the Magistrate Judge and the Defendants conduct
pretrial management solely as he desires it to proceed, and in at least one instance is
attempting to force the Magistrate Judge to become a pseudo-prison official by altering
the prison’s processes and procedures. When his requests are not met, he appeals to this
Court. Unless the Orders appealed from are clearly erroneous, contrary to law, or an
abuse of discretion, this Court is required to affirm such Orders.
Mr. Brown’s persistent efforts to have this Court inject itself into the details of the
Magistrate Judge’s pretrial management of his case are unavailing. The use of Magistrate
Judges would become counterproductive, and cases would exist on the docket much
longer than necessary, if the District Court micromanaged the very matters committed to
the discretion of the Magistrate Judge by statute. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) (“a judge
may designate a magistrate judge to hear and determine any pretrial matter pending
before the court, . . . [and] may reconsider any pretrial matter under this subparagraph (A)
where it has been shown that the magistrate judge’s order is clearly erroneous or contrary
to law”). Accordingly, the Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 11th day of June 2021.
Pectrlyp. Hora
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
(via U.S. First Class Mail)