# Caidor v. Onondaga County > Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · February 21, 2008 · 517 F.3d 601 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9634449 ## Case - **Full name:** Junet CAIDOR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ONONDAGA COUNTY, Sheryl Karpinski, Shaun McCarthy, John Balloni, Maureen Craner and Teddy Spooner, Defendants-Appellees - **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit - **Decided:** February 21, 2008 - **Citations:** 517 F.3d 601; 102 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1287; 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 3625; 2008 WL 451146 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Dissent by Pooler - **Judges:** Jacobs, Pooler, Sack - **Cited by:** 1,073 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9634449 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - holding that “a pro se litigant who fails to object timely to a magistrate judge’s order on a non-dispositive matter waives the right to appellate review of that order, even absent express notice from the magistrate judge that failure to object within ten days [now 14 days] wi… - concluding that a pro se litigant “who fails to object timely to a magistrate’s order on a non-dispositive matter waives the right to appellate review of that order, even absent express notice from the magistrate judge that failure to object within ten days will preclude appel… - explaining that “failure to object timely to a magistrate[ judge]’s report operates as a waiver of any further judicial review of the magistrate[ judge]’s decision” and that “pro se litigants generally are required to inform themselves regarding procedural rules and to comply … - holding that “a pro se litigant who fails to object timely to a magistrate’s order on a non-dispositive matter waives the right to appellate review of that order, even absent express notice from the magistrate judge that failure to object within ten days will preclude appellat… - explaining that “failure to object timely to a . . . report [and recommendation] operates as a waiver of any further judicial review of the magistrate[ judge’s] decision” (quotation marks omitted) ## Opinion text POOLER, Circuit Judge, dissenting: I respectfully dissent. It is not enough to repeat the language of solicitude for the rights of pro se litigants without giving meaning to those rights. Since we need not reach the issue of whether this plaintiff waived his discovery rights, in order to affirm the grant of summary judgment to the defendants in this discrimination action, we should not do so. This is especially so, since, as the majority opinion points *606 out, the Northern District of New York does not separately inform litigants in its pro se manual of the risk of appellate waiver for failing to object within the required period. Plaintiff benefitted from some discovery while he was represented by counsel and he does not, on appeal, explain what additional information he sought. The key question of whether Onondaga County Department of Emergency Communications had ever employed anyone who had a discrepancy between their criminal background check and their responses to related questions on the application form had already been answered. Therefore, we need not decide whether Magistrate Peebles correctly denied plaintiffs motion to compel discovery because it would not alter the outcome of the motion for summary judgment. Apart from advising the Northern District of New York that it “might consider” supplementing its pro se manual, I, respectfully, see no merit to this ungenerous little opinion. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9634449. Public record. Not legal advice.