ALTON D. BROWN v. TOM WOLF, et al.

• Court: District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
• Decided: November 4, 2025
• Docket: 2:16-cv-01081
• Status: Unknown

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 Before the Court is Alton D. Brown’s “Appeal to U.S. District Court Judge.” ECF No. 754. In a Text Order dated September 24, 2025, the Magistrate Judge denied Mr. Brown’s Motion for Court Order and Hearing(ECF No. 744), in which he sought a hearing on the matters raised in the Motion. ECF No. 747. The matters raised in the Motion concern alleged conduct by prison staff, aimed at Mr. Brown, to interfere, disrupt, and make it difficult for Mr. Brown to prosecute his case. Mr. Brown also sought a stay of summary judgment deadlines. The Magistrate Judge denied the Motion, citing the fact that one of the prison staff Mr. Brown complained about is not a defendant in this case and he has no bearing on the action. The Magistrate Judge noted that Mr. Brown could file a separate lawsuit against that prison staff member. 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). Here, the Magistrate Judge’s Order demonstrates that he is focused on the prosecution of

the present case, which is at the summary judgment stage. Thus, in his discretion, he denied Mr. Brown’s Motion, which concerned events outside the parameters of the presented summary judgment motions; namely, nonparty actors interfering with Mr. Brown in prison. The Magistrate Judge’s denial of Mr. Brown’s Motion, and his focus upon proceeding to resolution of summary judgment, is not clearly erroneous, contrary to law, or an abuse of discretion. The Court finds that Magistrate Judge’s September 24, 2025 Text Order is not an abuse of discretion, is not contrary to law, and is not clearly erroneous. Accordingly, the following Order is entered.

AND NOW, this 4th day of November 2025, it is hereby ORDERED that Alton D. Brown’s “Appeal to U.S. District Court Judge,” ECF No. 754, 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