Gillan v. US Army, 21 F.3d 419 (1st Cir. 1994). · Go Syfert
Search
Gillan v. US Army, 21 F.3d 419 (1st Cir. 1994). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
28 citation events (5 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Wolf v. Geico Insurance (rid, 2010-02-04)
Treatment trajectory · 1994 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1994 2010 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Wolf v. Geico Insurance
D.R.I. · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
Whether to order a discovery stay falls within a federal district court’s “broad discretion to manage discovery.” Heidelberg Americas, Inc. v. Tokyo Kikai Seisakusho, Ltd., 333 F.3d 38, 41 (1st Cir.2003); see Gillin v. United States Dep’t of Army, 21 F.3d 419 (1st Cir.1994) (finding no abuse of discretion in district court’s stay of discovery).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Valley Management, Inc. v. Boston Road Mobile Home Park Tenants Ass'n
D. Mass. · 2010 · signal: see also · confidence low
Although the First Circuit itself has yet to resolve this question, see Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee v. Gordon, 979 F.2d 11, 12-13 (1st Cir.1992); see also Albright v. FDIC, 21 F.3d 419 , 1994 WL 109047 , at *2 n. 4 (1st Cir. Apr. 1, 1994) (unpublished), several district and magistrate judges within this circuit, including the undersigned in Ceria v. Town of Wendell, 443 F.Supp.2d 94 , 95 n. 1 (D.Mass.2006), have held or assumed that a remand motion is a “non-dispositive” matter which a magistrate judge may “hear and decide” pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a) and section 636(b)(1…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." STEFANIK v. City of Holyoke
D. Mass. · 2009 · signal: see also · confidence low
Although the First Circuit has avoided the dispute, see Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee v. Gordon, 979 F.2d 11, 12-13 (1st Cir.1992); see also Albright v. FDIC, 21 F.3d 419 , 1994 WL 109047 , at *2 n. 4 (1st Cir. Apr. 1, 1994) (unpublished), several district and magistrate judges within this circuit, including the undersigned in Ceria v. Town of Wendell, 443 F.Supp.2d 94 , 95 n. 1 (D.Mass.2006), have held or assumed that a remand motion is a “non-dispositive” matter which a magistrate judge may “hear and decide” pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a) and section 636(b)(1)(A), see Societ…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Gillan
v.
US Army
93-1825.
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
Mar 18, 1994.
21 F.3d 419
Unpublished

21 F.3d 419

NOTICE: First Circuit Local Rule 36.2(b)6 states unpublished opinions may be cited only in related cases.
Robert A. GILLIN, Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, Defendant, Appellee.

No. 93-1825.

United States Court of Appeals,
First Circuit.

March 18, 1994

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Robert A. Gillin on brief pro se.

Peter E. Papps, United States Attorney, and Gretchen Leah Witt, First Assistant U.S. Attorney, on brief for appellee.

Before Breyer, Chief Judge, Torruella and Selya, Circuit Judges.

D.N.H.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

1

Plaintiff brought a pro se action for declaratory relief under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 552 ("FOIA"), claiming that the United States Army Corps of Engineers wrongfully denied him access to a number of documents which he asked to review relating to a construction permit issued by the Corps. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendant on the ground that plaintiff had failed to raise a substantial issue relating to the reasonableness of the Corps' search for the documents requested. Although plaintiff insisted that the Corps' files should contain additional documents, the Corps' detailed affidavits asserted that it had produced all documents relating to the subject permit and explained the absence of other documents. The court observed that the crux of plaintiff's disagreement with the Corps apparently relates to his perception that the permit was improperly issued, a matter not reviewable under the guise of an FOIA action. Reviewing the dismissal de novo, we agree with the district court's analysis and affirm substantially for the reasons set forth in Judge McAuliffe's thorough memorandum and order of May 28, 1993. We also find no abuse of discretion in the district court's stay of discovery pending the outcome of the summary judgment motion.

2

Affirmed.