06-4698-cv

Caidor v. Onondaga County 1 UNI TEDSTATE S COURT OF APPEALS 2 3 FOR THE S ECOND CIRCUI T 4 5 Aug ustTerm , 2 007 6 7 (Ar gue d: Dec emb er 11, 20 07 De cid ed: Fe bru ary21 ,20 08) 8 9 Doc ketNo . 0 6-4 698 -cv 10 11 12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x 13 JUN ET CAI DOR , 14 15 Pla int iff -Ap pel lan t, 16 17 18 - v .- 19 ONO NDAGA COUNTY , S HERYL KAR PIN SKI , 20 21 SHAUN MCCART HY, JO HN BAL LON I, MAU REE N C RAN ER andTE DDYSP OON ER, 22 23 Def end ant s-Appe lle es. 24 25 26 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x 27 Bef ore : JAC OBS , C hie f Judg e, POO LERan d S ACK , 28 29 Cir cui t Judg es. 30 31 Pla int iff -Ap pel lan t June t C aid or app eal s f romanor der 32 ent ere d i n t he Nor the rn Dis tri ct of NewYo rk (Pe ebl es, M. J.) 33 on Sep tember20 , 2 004 , d eny inghi s m oti on to compel 34 dis cov eryan d i ssu inga pro tec tiv e o rde r o n b eha lf of the 35 def end ant s. Fo r t he fol low ingre aso ns, we co ncl ude th at 36 Cai dorwa ive d h is rig ht to app eal th e m agi str ate ’s ord er. 37 Jud ge Poo lerdi sse nts ina sep ara te opi nio n.2 1 PHI LLI P G . S TEC K, Coo per , E rvi ng 2 & S ava ge LLP , A lba ny, NY , f or 3 Pla int iff -Ap pel lan t. 4 5 KAREN A. BLE SKO SKI (Anth onyP. 6 Riv izz ign o, Cou ntyAt tor ney , o f 7 cou nse l), Sy rac use , N Y, for Def end ant s-Appe lle es. 8 9 10 DENNIS JACOB S, Cir cui t Judg e: 11 12 Pla int iff -Ap pel lan t June t C aid or cha lle nge s t he gra nt 13 of summar y j udgmen t i n f avo r o f t he def end ant s b y t he Uni ted 14 Sta tes Di str ictCo urtfo r t he Nor the rn Dis tri ct of NewYo rk 15 (Mc Cur n, J.) , a nd an ord er ent ere d b y M agi str ate Ju dge 16 Pee ble s, den yin g C aid or’ s m oti on to compel di sco ver y a nd 17 iss uin g apr ote cti ve ord er forth e d efe nda nts ’ b ene fit . In 18 a s epa rat e s umm aryor derfi ledto day , w e a ffi rm the gr antof 19 summar y j udgmen t d ism iss ingth e c omp lai nt. T his op ini on 20 con cer ns onl y t he dis cov eryor der , whic h w as ent ere d whil e 21 Cai dorwa s a ppe ari ng prose . 22 Cai dordi d n ot obj ecttoMa gis tra te Jud ge Pee ble s’s 23 ord er in the di str ictco urt . It is set tle d l aw tha t apr o 24 se lit iga nt’ s f ail ure toob jec t t o ama gis tra te jud ge’ s 25 dec isi on on a d isp osi tiv e m att er doe s n ot eff ecta wai verof 26 app ell ate re vie w a bse nt an exp res s w arn ingfr om the 27 mag ist rat e j udg e. Sm all v. Se c’yofHe alt h & HumanSe rvs ., 28 892 F. 2d 15, 16 (2 d C ir. 19 89) (p er cur iam ). Fo r t he 29 rea son s s tat ed bel ow, we de cli ne to ext endth at rul e t o a3 1 mag ist rat e j udg e’s de cis ionona non -di spo sit ive ma tte r. We 2 the ref ore ho ld tha t C aid or wai vedhi s r igh t t o a ppe al 3 Mag ist rat e Judg e P eeb les ’s ord er. 4 On app eal , C aid or arg ues th at his lo st opp ort uni ty for 5 dis cov erypr eve nte d h im fro m r esi sti ng summar y j udgmen t. 6 Bec aus e C aid or didno t p res s t his ar gumentinth e d ist ric t 7 cou rt, or din ari ly we wou ld notco nsi deritonap pea l. Se e 8 Bog le- Ass ega i v . C onn ect icu t, 470 F. 3d 498 , 5 04 (2dCi r. 9 200 6) (“‘ [I] t i s awe ll- est abl ish ed gen era l r ule th at an 10 app ell ate co urtwi ll notco nsi deranis sue ra ise d f or the 11 fir st time o n a ppe al. ’”) (quot ingGr een e v . U nit ed Sta tes , 12 13 F.3 d 5 77, 58 6 ( 2d Cir . 1 994 ) ( alt era tio n i n o rig ina l)) . 13 “Ho wev er, be cau se the ru le is pru den tia l, not 14 jur isd ict ion al, we ha ve dis cre tio n t o c ons ide r w aiv ed 15 arg ume nts .” Sn iad o v . B ankAu str ia AG, 37 8 F .3d21 0, 213 16 (2dCi r. 200 4) (ci tat ionom itt ed) , v aca tedonot hergr oun ds, 17 542 U. S. 917 , 1 24 S. Ct. 28 70 (20 04) . Forin sta nce , “ [w] e 18 hav e e xer cis ed thi s d isc ret ionwh ere ne ces sar y t o a voi d a 19 man ife st inj ust ice orwh ere th e a rgumen t p res ent s aqu est ion 20 of lawan d t her e i s n o n eedfo r a ddi tio nal fa ct- fin din g.” 21 Id. (c ita tio n o mit ted ). 22 Cai dor , who is nota law yer , w as app ear ingpr o s e when 23 he opp ose d t he def end ant s’ mot ionfo r s umm aryju dgment . On4 1 app eal , t he def end ant s a rgu e w aiv er. B ut the y d o n ot rel y 2 on Cai dor ’s fai lur e t o o ppo se summar y j udgmen t o n t he gro und 3 of out sta ndi ng dis cov eryre que sts ; i nst ead , t heyre ly on his 4 fai lur e t o o bje ct to Jud ge Pee ble s’s di sco ver y r uli ng in the 5 dis tri ct cou rt. T he app ell ate is sue fr ame d b y t he par tie s 6 is one ofpu re law , a nd is ful ly bri efe d b y c oun sel . For 7 the se rea son s, we exe rci se ourdi scr eti on to con sid er thi s 8 iss ue. 9 10 BACKGR OUND 11 Cai dorbe ganwo rki ng at the On ond agaCo unt y D epa rtment 12 of Eme rge ncyCo mmu nic ati ons onMa rch11 , 2 002 . Fou r d ays 13 lat er, he wa s f ire d a fte r h is sup erv iso rs lea rne d t hathi s 14 jobap pli cat ionfa ile d t o d isc los e h is cri min al rec ord . On 15 Jul y 1 , 2 003 , C aid or fil ed sui t i n t he Nor the rn Dis tri ct of 16 NewYo rk, al leg ingth at his te rmi nat ionwa s b ase d o n r ace 17 dis cri min ati on, invi ola tio n o f T itl e V II of the Ci vil 18 Rig hts Ac t o f 1 964 , 4 2 U .S. C. § 2 000 e; 42 U.S .C. §§19 81, 19 198 3 a nd 198 5; the Ameri can s w ithDi sab ili tie s A ct of 199 0, 20 42 U.S .C. § 121 01; an d t he NewYo rk Sta te Hum an Rig hts La w, 21 N.Y . E xec . L aw § 2 90. 22 Mag ist rat e Judg e P eeb les , who ove rsa w p ret ria l 23 dis cov eryinth is mat terpu rsu antto28 U. S.C . §63 6(b )(1 ),5 1 seta dis cov eryde adl ine ofAp ril 16 , 2 004 . In May20 04 2 (af terth e d ead lin e h ad pas sed ) t he par tie s r epo rte d t hat 3 the y w ere cl ose tose ttl eme nt; bu t s oonth ere aft er, Ca ido r’s 4 law yerwi thd rewfr om the re pre sen tat ion . On Jul y 2 9, 200 4, 5 Jud ge Pee ble s e nte redanor der(1 ) e xte ndi ng the di sco ver y 6 dea dli ne to Aug ust13 , 2 004 , ( 2) all owi ng Cai dortose rve 7 thr ee add iti ona l i nte rro gat ori es on the de fen dan ts, an d ( 3) 8 ord eri ng Cai dortore spo nd to the de fen dan ts’ di sco ver y 9 reques ts andap pea r f or his de pos iti on. 10 Cai dorth ere aft er ser vedonth e d efe nda nts fo rty 11 doc ume nt reques ts andsi x r equ est s f or adm iss ion . On Aug ust 12 26, 20 04, Ca ido r m ove d t o c omp el the de fen dan ts to res pon d. 13 On Sep tember20 , 2 004 , Judg e P eeb les en ter ed an ord er 14 den yin g t he mot iontoco mpe l a nd iss uin g apr ote cti ve ord er 15 forth e b ene fitofth e d efe nda nts . The or derdi d n ot adv ise 16 tha t t he fai lur e o f apa rtytofi le obj ect ion s i n t he 17 dis tri ct cou rt wit hinte n d ays wo uldpr ecl ude ap pel lat e 18 rev iewpu rsu antto28 U. S.C . §63 6(b )(1 ) a nd Fed era l Rule of 19 Civ il Pro cedure 72 (a) . Cai dorfi lednoob jec tio n t o t he 20 ord er in the di str ictco urt . He cha lle nge s i t n ow on 21 app eal .6 1 DIS CUS SION 2 In gen era l, “fa ilu re to obj ectti mel y t o ama gis tra te’ s 3 rep ortop era tes as a wai verofan y f urt herju dic ial re vie w 4 of the ma gis tra te’ s d eci sio n.” S mal l, 892 F. 2d at 16 5 (ci tat ion s o mit ted ); see , e .g. , S pen ce v. Md. Ca s. Co. , 9 95 6 F.2 d 1 147 , 1 155 (2 d C ir. 19 93) (“ Spe nce di d n ot obj ectin 7 the di str ictco urttoth e m agi str ate ju dge ’s rul ing s w ith in 8 the pe rio d a llo wedbyth e Rule s o r, ind eed , a t a ny time 9 pri or to the en tryoffi nal ju dgment . Acc ord ing ly, he ma y 10 notch all eng e t hos e d isc ove ry rul ing s i n t his Co urt .”) . 11 Cai dorre lie s o n t he fol low ingte xt fro m S mal l f or the 12 pro pos iti on tha t h is prose st atu s e xcu sedhi s f ail ure to 13 obj ectinth e c our t b elo w: 14 [A] pr o s e p art y’s fa ilu re to obj ecttoa 15 mag ist rat e’s re por t a nd rec ommend ati on wit hin 16 the te n d ay time l imi t p res cri bedby28 U. S.C . 17 § 6 36( b)( 1) doe s n ot ope rat e a s awa ive r o f 18 the ri ghttoap pel lat e r evi ew of the di str ict 19 cou rt’ s a dop tio n o f t he mag ist rat e’s 20 rec ommend ati on unl ess th e m agi str ate ’s rep ort 21 exp lic itl y s tat es tha t f ail ure toob jec t t o 22 the re por t w ith in ten(1 0) day s w ill pr ecl ude 23 app ell ate re vie w a nd spe cif ica llyci tes 28 24 U.S .C. § 636 (b) (1) an d r ule s 7 2, 6(a ) a nd 6(e ) 25 of the Fe der al Rul es of Civ il Pro cedure . 26 Sma ll, 89 2 F .2dat16 . 27 We con clu de tha t S mal l, whi ch con cer neda prose 28 lit iga nt’ s a ppe al fro m ama gis tra te’ s r epo rt and 29 rec ommend ati on on a d isp osi tiv e m att er, is li mit ed to tha t7 1 con tex t. Fe der al Rul e o f C ivi l P roc edu re 72( b), wh ich 2 gov ern s m agi str ate s’ dec isi ons ondi spo sit ive ma tte rs, li ke 3 the on e a t i ssu e i n S mal l, con tai ns no exp lic it wai ver 4 lan gua ge; bu t t her e i s awa rni ng as to wai verinRu le 72( a), 5 whi ch gov ern s n on- dis pos iti ve mat ter s l ike th e o ne at iss ue 6 her e. Co mpa re Fed . R . C iv. P. 72 (b) (2) (“ Wit hin10 da ys 7 aft er bei ng ser vedwi th a c opyofth e r eco mme nde d 8 dis pos iti on, a par ty mayse rve an d f ile sp eci ficwr itt en 9 obj ect ion s t o t he pro pos ed fin din gs andre commen dat ion s.” ) 10 wit h F ed R. Civ . P . 7 2(a ) ( “A par ty mayse rve an d f ile 11 obj ect ion s t o t he ord er wit hin10 da ys aft er bei ng ser ved 12 wit h aco py. Apa rtyma y n ot ass ignas er rora def ectin 13 the or derno t t ime ly obj ect ed to. ” ( emp has is add ed) ); see 14 als o M arc ell a v . C api tal Di st. Ph ysi cia ns’ He alt h P lan , 15 Inc ., 293 F. 3d 42, 46 (2 d C ir. 20 02) (o bse rvi ng tha t u nli ke 16 Rul e 7 2(a ), “th ere is nosi mil ar [wa ive r] pro vis ioninRu le 17 72( b) forre commen dat ion s a s t o d isp osi tiv e m oti ons ”). S o, 18 whe re a m agi str ate ’s rul ingona dis pos iti ve mat teris at 19 iss ue, “o ur wai verru le is setfo rthon ly in cas e l aw. ” 20 Sma ll, 89 2 F .2dat16 . 21 The Co urtinSm all re aso nedth at eve n i f t he prose 22 pla int iff 23 hadat tempte d t o l oca te the sp eci ficFe der al 24 Rul es of Civ il Pro cedure ci tedatth e e nd of8 1 the ma gis tra te’ s r epo rt, no ne of tho se rul es 2 wou ld hav e i nfo rme d h er of the po ten tia l 3 wai verofap pel lat e r evi ew . . . To requir e a 4 prose pl ain tif f . . . t o w ade th rou gh the 5 cas e l aw of thi s C irc uitinor dertopr ese rve 6 herri ghttoap pel lat e r evi ew wou ld be an 7 unr eas ona ble bu rde n. 8 9 Sma ll, 89 2 F .2dat16 . In oth er wor ds, be cau se Rul e 7 2(b ) 10 doe s n ot war n p ro se lit iga nts ofap pel lat e w aiv er, we 11 tas kedma gis tra te jud ges wi th doi ng so. S mal l h as bee n 12 app lie d c ons ist ent ly by thi s C irc uittopr o s e l iti gan ts’ 13 app eal s f romma gis tra tes ’ r uli ngs ondi spo sit ive ma tte rs. 14 See , e .g. , R old an v. Rac ett e, 984 F. 2d 85, 89 (2 d C ir. 19 93) 15 (fi ndi ng wai verwh ere th e m agi str ate ’s rep ortan d 16 rec ommend ati on pro pos ingdi smi ssa l “ pla inl y s ati sfi e[d ] t he 17 Sma ll requir eme nts , a nd add iti ona llyre fer redtoth e S mal l 18 dec isi on” ); Fra nk v. Joh nso n, 968 F. 2d 298 , 3 00 (2dCi r. 19 199 2) (fi ndi ng wai verwh ere pr o s e l iti gan t “ fai ledto 20 obj ecttoth e M agi str ate Ju dge ’s rep ortaf terre cei vin g 21 ade qua te not ice ofth e c ons equ enc es of a f ail ure toob jec t 22 in a t ime ly man ner ”). 23 Cai doras ks us to ext endSm all tohi s a ppe al fro m t he 24 mag ist rat e’s ru lin g o n ano n-d isp osi tiv e d isc ove ry mat ter . 25 28 U.S .C. § 636 (b) (1) (A) ; F ed. R. Ci v. P. 72( a); Th oma s E . 26 Hoa r, Inc . v . S araLe e C orp ., 900 F. 2d 522 , 5 25 (2dCi r. 27 199 0) (“M att ers co nce rni ng dis cov eryge ner all y a re9 1 con sid ere d n ond isp osi tiv e o f t he lit iga tio n.” (c ita tio n a nd 2 int ern al pun ctu ati on omi tte d)) . Thi s C irc uitma kes ce rta in 3 all owa nce s f or prose li tig ant s. We re cog niz e t hatth e 4 rig ht to app earpr o s e “ sho uldno t b e i mpa ire d b y h ars h 5 app lic ati on of tec hni cal ru les ,” andth ere for e w e “ mak e 6 rea son abl e a llo wan ces topr ote ct prose li tig ant s f rom 7 ina dve rte nt for fei tur e o f i mpo rta nt rig hts be cau se of the ir 8 lac k o f l ega l t rai nin g.” T rag uthv. Zu ck, 71 0 F .2d90 , 9 5 9 (2dCi r. 198 3). N one the les s, “pr o s e l iti gan ts gen era lly 10 are re qui redtoin form t hem sel ves re gar din g p roc edu ral ru les 11 andtoco mpl y w ithth em. ” Edw ard s v . I NS, 59 F. 3d 5, 8 ( 2d 12 Cir . 1 995 ) ( cit ati on omi tte d); se e a lsoLu cas v. Mi les , 8 4 13 F.3 d 5 32, 53 8 ( 2d Cir . 1 996 ) ( Jac obs , J ., dis sen tin g) (“T he 14 con cep t o f ‘ six ty day s’ canbe un der sto od andap pre cia ted 15 wit hou t ale gal educa tio n. (O ne wou ld hav e t o b e ala wye r 16 to bel iev e t hat‘s ixt y d ays ’ i s a n e lus ive co nce pt. )”) . 17 “[T ]hi s i s n ot a c ase wh ere a prose li tig antha s 18 stumbl ed int o asn are fo undon ly in ourca se law .” Lo Sac co 19 v. Mid dle tow n, 71 F.3 d 8 8, 92 (2dCi r. 199 5). I f C aid or had 20 con sul tedth e F ede ral Ru le of Civ il Pro cedure ap pli cab le to 21 Mag ist rat e Judg e P eeb les ’s ord er, it“w oul d h ave in formed 22 [hi m] of the po ten tia l w aiv er of app ell ate re vie w.” S mal l,Inth e S out her n D ist ric t o f N ew Yor k, prose 1 lit iga nts ar e g ive n ama nua l t hatadvis es, “I f y ou do not obj ecttoth e M agi str ate Ju dge ’s ord er wit hinth at ten(1 0) daype rio d, youma y n ot lat er obj ecttoth e o rde r.” M anu al forPr o S e L iti gan ts App ear ingBe for e t he Uni tedSt ate s Dis tri ct Cou rt forth e S out her n D ist ric t o f N ew Yor k, ava ila ble atht tp: //www1 .ny sd. usc our ts. gov /ca ses / sho w.p hp? db= forms& id= 71. T he Nor the rn Dis tri ct of NewYo rk mig ht con sid er sup ple men tin g i ts prose ma nua l w itha sim ila r e xpr ess wa rni ng abo ut the ri sk of app ell ate wa ive r. 10 1 892 F. 2d at 16. Wher e, as her e, rea din g t he app lic abl e 1 2 rul e w ill wa rn a p ro se lit iga nt of the co nse que nce s o f 3 fil inganun timelyob jec tio n, we see none ed to requir e t hat 4 the ma gis tra te jud ge inf ormth e l iti gan t o f a n a ppe al wai ver 5 pro vis ion . Acc ord ing ly, we ho ld tha t apr o s e l iti gan t who 6 fai ls to obj ectti mel y t o ama gis tra te’ s o rde r o n ano n7 dis pos iti ve mat terwa ive s t he rig ht to app ell ate re vie w o f 8 tha t o rde r, eve n a bse nt exp res s n oti ce fro m t he mag ist rat e 9 jud ge tha t f ail ure toob jec t w ith in tenda ys wil l p rec lud e 10 app ell ate re vie w.

11 CONCLUSION 12 The ju dgmentis af firmed .11

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 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 plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery because it would not alter the outcome of the motion for summary judgment. Apart from advising the Northern District of New12

York that it “might consider” supplementing its pro se manual, I, respectfully, see no merit to this ungenerous little opinion.