INGRAM v. S. DAVIS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA KAI D. INGRAM, ) ) Plaintiff, ) Civil No. 22-42 ) Judge Marilyn J. Horan/ v. ) Magistrate Judge Patricia L. Dodge ) B. RUDZIENSKI, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER Presently before the Court is Kai D. Ingram’s Objection to Order Granting Defendant’s Motion for an Extension of Time. ECF No. 67. Specifically, the Magistrate Judge granted the Defendants a 30-day extension of time to respond to Mr. Ingram’s discovery requests. MR. Ingram requests that the Court rescind the Magistrate Judge’s Order permitting Defendants additional time to respond to discovery requests and to grant Mr. Ingram’s Objections. 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 rescind Magistrate Judge Dodge’s Order.

Magistrate Judge Dodge’s Order is not an abuse of discretion and is not clearly erroneous.

And NOW, this 16th day of October 2023, it is ORDERED that Kai D. Ingram’s Objection to Order Granting Defendant’s Motion for an Extension of Time, ECF No. 67, is OVERRULED.

_s/Marilyn J. Horan Marilyn J. Horan United States District Judge cc: Kai D. Ingram, pro se HC8003 SCI-GREENE PROGRESS DRIVE WAYNESBURG, PA 15370