Murray v. Tanea et al, No. 6:2016cv06525 - Document 135 (W.D.N.Y. 2022)

Court Description: DECISION AND ORDER William J. Murray's appeal 134 of Magistrate Judge Pedersen's Orders 130 133 is denied in all respects. Signed by Hon. David G. Larimer on 9/6/2022. (KAH)This was mailed to: Plaintiff William J. Murray.

Download PDF
Murray v. Tanea et al Doc. 135 Case 6:16-cv-06525-DGL-MJP Document 135 Filed 09/06/22 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK _______________________________________________ WILLIAM J. MURRAY, DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiff, 16-CV-6525L v. TOM TANEA, et al., Defendants. ________________________________________________ United States Magistrate Judge Mark W. Pedersen has been directed to supervise discovery in this case and he entered two Orders, Dkt. #130 and #133. The plaintiff, William J. Murray (“Murray”), has filed a pro se motion appealing those Orders (Dkt. #134). Murry appeals pro se but he has an attorney, who was appointed, pro bono, for the limited purpose of completing email-related discovery. I have reviewed Murray’s appeal and find no basis to alter or modify Magistrate Judge Pedersen’s Orders. It is clear that when one is represented by an attorney, a court is not required to entertain pro se motions filed by the party. Such hybrid proceedings are not permitted. The standard for reviewing a Magistrate Judge’s orders is whether that order was “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). Magistrate Judge Pedersen’s Orders are correct and proper and, therefore, not “clearly erroneous.” Dockets.Justia.com Case 6:16-cv-06525-DGL-MJP Document 135 Filed 09/06/22 Page 2 of 2 CONCLUSION For the reasons stated herein, William J. Murray’s appeal (Dkt. #134) of Magistrate Judge Pedersen’s Orders (Dkt. # 130, #133) is DENIED IN ALL RESPECTS. IT IS SO ORDERED. _______________________________________ DAVID G. LARIMER United States District Judge Dated: Rochester, New York September 6, 2022. 2

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.