Opinion

BROWN v. WOLF

Court
District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
Filed
Feb 20, 2024
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, )

)

vs. ) Civil No. 16-cv-1081

)

TOM WOLF, et. Al. , )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER ON APPEAL (ECF No. 672)

Before the Court is Alton D. Brown’s “Appeal of Magistrate Discovery Order Dated

11/17/23 (Doc. No. 664).” ECF No. 672. Mr. Brown argues that the Magistrate Judge’s Order

unfairly, unlawfully, and erroneously restricts his ability to obtain discovery in furtherance of his

claims. He also refers to the Magistrate Judge’s violation of the Discovery Rules by requiring

that Mr. Brown comply with unfair and strict conditions while managing discovery, in violation

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Conversely, he states that the Magistrate judge treats

the Defendants better and fails to enforce discovery rules and orders against Defendants. He

cites several examples; however, such are outside the confines of the specific Order Mr. Brown

has appealed. With respect to the instant Discovery Order, Mr. Brown expresses his

disagreement with Judge Eddy’s management of discovery. He argues that a discovery hearing

should have been held and requests that this Court order such a hearing. He also requests that

this Court insert itself into management of the discovery process.

The Magistrate Judge’s Discovery Order is non-dispositive.1 Discovery is uniquely a

matter committed to the discretion of the judge presiding over the discovery phase. 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.” Id. (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).

This Court will not overrule a discovery order where there is no evidence that the

Magistrate Judge has committed error or abused her discretion. In light of the broad discretion

granted to Magistrate Judges in the management of a case and, specifically, in managing

discovery matters, the Court finds that Magistrate Judge Eddy’s discovery Order, ECF No. 664,

is not an abuse of discretion and is not clearly erroneous.

1 The Federal Magistrates Act provides that a “clearly erroneous or contrary to law” standard applies to a magistrate

judge’s 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). “Where a magistrate judge

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).

AND NOW, this 20th day of February 2024, it is hereby ORDERED that, Mr. Brown’s

“Appeal of Magistrate Discovery Order Dated 11/17/23 (Doc. No. 664)” (ECF No. 672) is

DENIED.

_s/Marilyn J. Horan

Marilyn J. Horan

United States District Judge

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.