Scher v. Bureau of Prisons et al, No. 0:2019cv02001 - Document 39 (D. Minn. 2020)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER overruling 32 APPEAL/OBJECTION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION to District Judge; affirming 27 Order of March 2, 2020; and denying as moot 29 Motion to Recuse. (Written Opinion) Signed by Judge Susan Richard Nelson on 5/1/2020. (SMD)

Download PDF

Scher v. Bureau of Prisons et al Doc. 39 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Gregory A. Scher Case No. 19-cv-2001 (SRN/BRT) Plaintiffs, v. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Bureau of Prisons, Capt. J. Feda; Lt. Bordt, and FMC Rochester Defendant. Gregory A. Scher, Reg. No. 00480-122, FMC-Rochester, PO Box 4000, pro se. Ana H. Voss, United States Attorney's Office, 300 S 4th St Ste 600, Minneapolis, MN 55415, for Defendants. SUSAN RICHARD NELSON, United States District Judge I. INTRODUCTION Before the Court are Plaintiff Gregory A. Scher’s Objections (“Pl’s Obj.”) [Doc. No. 32] to Magistrate Judge Thorson’s March 2, 2020 Order extending the deadline for Defendants to respond to the Complaint [Doc. No 27]. Plaintiff also moves for the recusal of Magistrate Judge Thorson [Doc. No. 29], but voluntarily withdrew this motion [Doc. No. 37]. For the reasons set forth below, the Court overrules Plaintiff’s Objections, affirms the March 2 Order, and denies Plaintiff’s motion for recusal. II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The facts relevant to the Court’s disposition of the issues here may be briefly stated. Mr. Scher is an inmate currently confined at FMC-Rochester. He commenced the instant Dockets.Justia.com action against Defendants in July of 2019, alleging, inter alia, that Defendants were deliberately indifferent in accommodating his disability and serious medical needs. (“Compl.” [Doc. No. 1] at 5-7.) In September of 2019, Mr. Scher was ordered to submit Marshal Service Forms to complete proper service on Defendants. [Doc. No. 6.] Thereafter, a summons was returned executed by all Defendants except the Bureau of Prisons. [Doc. No. 19.] Because no responsive pleading had been filed by any of the Defendants, Mr. Scher appears to have filed three separate motions seeking summary judgment, [Doc. No. 15], a default judgment, [Doc. No. 16], and a preliminary injunction [Doc. No. 22], respectively, in the case. On March 2, 2020, Magistrate Judge Thorson issued an order extending the deadline to March 13, 2020 for Defendants to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint. [Doc. No. 27]. If Defendants failed to respond, Mr. Scher was allowed to file a Motion for Default on or before March 27, 2020. (Id.) Defendants responded within the allotted deadline, notifying the Court that service was not properly completed in accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 4(i). (See Defs.’ Letter [Doc. No. 28] at 1.) III. DISCUSSION The standard of review of “an appeal of a magistrate judge’s order on a nondispositive issue is extremely deferential.” Reko v. Creative Promotions, Inc., 70 F. Supp. 2d 1005, 1007 (D. Minn. 1999). The Court will reverse such an order only if it is “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); Local Rule 72.2(a)(3). Here, Plaintiff challenges the March 2 Order, contending that Judge Thorson 2 “exceed[ed] her authority in giving [] Defendants unlimited time constraints to respond” to the pleadings. (Pl.’s Obj. at 1.) The Court disagrees. Judge Thorson has the discretionary authority to extend the deadline to answer the Complaint, and the Court finds nothing in the record demonstrating that the extension ordered was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertions, Judge Thorson ordered Defendants to respond to the Complaint within a reasonable, allotted time frame. (Order at 1.) Moreover, Defendants appear to validly object to proceeding forward here because service was not properly completed, which Plaintiff appears to concede. (See Pl.’s Letter [Doc. No. 33] at 2) (requesting Defendants to waive service on behalf of the Bureau of Prisons)). Finally, Plaintiff moves to recuse Judge Thorson [Doc. No. 29], but voluntarily withdrew this motion [Doc. No. 37]. Accordingly, this motion is denied as moot. IV. ORDER Based on the submission and the entire file and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. Plaintiff’s Objections [Doc. No. 32] to the March 2, 2020 Order are OVERRULED; 2. Magistrate Judge Thorson’s Order of March 2, 2020 [Doc. No. 27] is AFFIRMED; 3. Plaintiff’s Motion for Recusal [Doc. No. 29] is DENIED. Dated: May 1, 2020 s/Susan Richard Nelson SUSAN RICHARD NELSON United States District Judge 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.