Opinion

BROWN v. WOLF

Court
District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
Filed
Sep 29, 2023
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 29.3%

The opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

ALTON D. BROWN, )

)

Plaintiff, )

v. ) Civil No. 16-1081

)

TOM WOLF, et. al, )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Presently before the Court is Alton D. Brown’s “Motion for Reconsideration” of the

District Court’s Order dated 9/7/23. ECF No. 652. The Court’s September 7, 2023 Order denied

Mr. Brown’s Motion requesting an extension of time to file objections to four Magistrate Judge

discovery Orders. Order, Sept. 7, 2023, ECF No. 646. Mr. Brown’s Motion requesting an

extension was filed on August 31, 2023. In denying the Motion, the Court highlighted the fact

that the discovery deadline had been extended several times and that discovery had closed on

August 4, 2023. The Court found that three of the Magistrate Judge’s discovery Orders were

moot and that the final discovery Order was not clearly erroneous, contrary to law, or an abuse of

discretion.

The Motion for Reconsideration

In the present request for reconsideration, Mr. Brown states that the District Court’s

September 7, 2023 Order denied him “the opportunity to make crucial discovery needed to

prosecute the matter efficiently”. ECF No. 652, at 3. Mr. Brown asserts that the Magistrate

Judge’s discovery orders are “schemes designed to prevent [Mr. Brown] from conducting any

discovery.” Id. Similarly, he states that “he has been denied the opportunity to make discovery.”

Id. at 4. He seeks reconsideration of the Court’s September 7, 2023 Order, in part, because

although the discovery deadline has expired, Mr. Brown is still permitted to appeal the

Magistrate Judge’s discovery Orders. Id. at 2. He states that his “aim is to preserve appealable

issues and expose [the] Judge’s bias against Plaintiff and favor for the Defendants.” Id. at 3. He

asks the Court “to allow him to at least get his Objections on record for appeal purposes, which

would afford him to reverse the fundamental injustice of being denied discovery, in violation of

the 14th Amendment” and the “denial of due process and equal protection.” Id. at 5.

Discussion

Mr. Brown seeks reconsideration of the Court’s September 7, 2023 Order. Mr. Brown’s

multiple appeals and objections to the Magistrate Judge’s discovery Orders demonstrate that he

seeks a ruling from this Court overruling the Magistrate Judge’s management of discovery.

Furthermore, Mr. Brown wants this Court to Order additional time for him to engage in

discovery. This Court will not overrule discovery Orders where there is no evidence that the

Magistrate Judge has committed error or abused her discretion.

The discretion afforded a District Court or a Magistrate Judge in managing discovery is

broad. “Rulings regarding discovery matters are consigned to the court’s discretion and

judgment.” Doe v. Schuylkill Cnty. Courthouse, 343 F.R.D. 289, 293 (M.D. Pa. 2023). In

general, a district “court’s decisions regarding the conduct of discovery will be disturbed only

upon a showing of abuse of that discretion.” Schuylkill Cnty. Courthouse, 343 F.R.D. at 293

(citing Marroquin-Manriquez v. I.N.S., 699 F.2d 129, 134 (3d Cir. 1983)). “This far-reaching

[district court] discretion extends to rulings by United States Magistrate Judges on discovery

matters.” Schuylkill Cnty. Courthouse, 343 F.R.D. at 293. Upon review of a magistrate judge

discovery ruling, “district courts provide magistrate judges with particularly broad discretion in

resolving discovery disputes.” Id. A “magistrate judge’s discovery ruling ‘is entitled to great

deference and is reversible only for abuse of discretion.’” Id. (quoting Kresefky v. Panasonic

Commc'ns and Sys. Co., 169 F.R.D. 54, 64 (D.N.J. 1996). In light of the broad discretion

granted to District Courts and Magistrate Judges in the management of a case and, in particular,

in managing discovery matters, the Court declines to reconsider its prior Order finding that

Magistrate Judge Eddy’s discovery Orders are not an abuse of discretion and are not clearly

erroneous.

And NOW, this 29th day of September 2023, it is ORDERED that Alton D. Brown’s

Motion for Reconsideration, ECF No. 652, is DENIED. The District Court declines to

reconsider its September 7, 2023 Order.

__s/Marilyn J. Horan__________

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

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.