UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
November 8, 2010
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
WILLIAM HOLLEY, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Richard J. Arcara United States District Judge
This case was referred to Magistrate Judge H. Kenneth Schroeder, Jr., pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). O n A pril 19, 2002, defendant W illiam H olley filed an om nibus m otion for discovery and a m otion seeking an order com pelling the production of outstanding discovery m aterials, as w ell as other form s of relief, including but not lim ited to, the disclosure of G rand Jury m inutes/transcripts, precluding reference to "routine foot care," dism issal of the Indictm ent for failure to tim ely prosecute, and dism issal of the Indictm ent by reason of duplicative counts in the Indictm ent.
On July 23, 2010, M agistrate Judge S chroeder filed a Decision and Order, denying defendant's m otions. O n A ugust 3, 2010, defendant Peter filed objections to the Decision and O rder. The government filed a response on A ugust 31, 2010, and the C court heard oral argument on October 14, 2010.
Pursuant to 28 U .S .C . § 636(b)(1)(A ), the district court "m ay reconsider any pretrial m atter under this [section] w here it has been show n that the m agistrate's order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law ." The C court has review ed defendants' objections and M agistrate Judge S chroeder's D ecision and O rder. U pon such review and after hearing argum ent from counsel, the C court finds that M agistrate Judge S chroeder's D ecision and O rder is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law .
Accordingly, the court affirms the Decision and Order.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.