Bradshaw v. Marshall et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
JAY BRADSHAW,
Plaintiff,
v.
MATTHEW WELCH, et al.,
Defendants.
9:21-cv-826
(ECC/PJE)
Appearances:
Jay Bradshaw, Pro Se Plaintiff
Lela M. Gray, Asst. Att’y Gen., for Defendants
Hon. Elizabeth C. Coombe, United States District Judge:
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
I. 	INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Jay Bradshaw commenced this action pro se, asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. §
1983 arising out of his incarceration at Upstate Correctional Facility. Second Amended Complaint
(SAC), Dkt. No. 119.1 On July 25, 2025, Defendants filed a motion for partial summary judgment
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) seeking to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. 	Dkt. No. 209.
Plaintiff filed an opposition to Defendants’ motion. Dkt. No. 216. This matter was assigned to
United States Magistrate Judge Paul J. Evangelista who, on February 9, 2026, issued a Report-
Recommendation and Order recommending that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment be
granted in part and denied in part. Dkt. No. 223. Magistrate Judge Evangelista advised the parties
that under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), they had fourteen days within which to file written objections to
1 Plaintiff erroneously labeled the Second Amended Complaint as the Third Amended Complaint.
See Dkt. No. 130 at 3 n. 2.
Case 9:21-cv-00826-ECC-PJE Document 224 Filed 03/03/26 Page 1 of 6

2
the report and that the failure to object to the report within fourteen days would preclude appellate
review. Dkt. No. 223 at 27-28. No objections have been filed.
Additionally 	pending 	before 	the 	Court 	is 	Plaintiff’s 	appeal 	of 	Magistrate 	Judge
Evangelista’s Decision and Order denying Plaintiff’s motion to compel certain discovery. 	Dkt.
No. 221.
II. 	APPEAL OF DISCOVERY ORDER
A. 	Background
As relevant to this appeal, a discovery deadline of February 10, 2025 was set in this case.
Dkt. No. 193. 	On January 2, 2025, defense counsel received Plaintiff’s eighth request for
document production. Dkt. No. 204 ¶ 6. Defendants’ responses and objections were served on
January 28, 2025. 	Id. at ¶ 7. 	Defendants thereafter requested and were granted a thirty-day
extension of the discovery deadline, and the discovery deadline was extended to March 11, 2025.
Dkt. Nos. 197, 198.
Plaintiff filed a motion to compel on April 14, 2025, with respect to certain discovery
requested in his eighth request for document production. 	Dkt. No. 202. 	Specifically, Plaintiff
sought a court order compelling the production of (1) video footage related to a disciplinary
hearing, (2) the planning grid for the months of April through July 2021 for defendants Locke,
Gordon, Marshall, and Orbegozo, and (3) Unit Activity Logs for Upstate Building 10 for the same
months in 2021. See generally id. Defendants opposed Plaintiff’s motion to compel, arguing that
Plaintiff’s motion to compel was untimely, Plaintiff made no good faith attempt to resolve the
discovery issues before filing a motion to compel, and that Defendants appropriately responded to
Plaintiff’s demands. Dkt. No. 204-3 at 5-7.
Case 9:21-cv-00826-ECC-PJE Document 224 Filed 03/03/26 Page 2 of 6

3
On January 15, 2026, Magistrate Judge Evangelista issued a Memorandum-Decision and
Order denying Plaintiff’s motion to compel, for substantially the same reasons cited by Defendants
in their opposition. Dkt. No. 220. 	Plaintiff’s appeal of Magistrate Judge Evangelista’s Order is
pending before this Court. Dkt. No. 221.
B. 	Legal Standard
“When reviewing an appeal from a pretrial non-dispositive motion decided by a magistrate
judge, the court will affirm the order unless it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Ctr. for
Food Safety, Inc. v. Wood Farms, LLC, No. 5:23-cv-399 (FJS/ATB), 2023 WL 11116397, at *2
(N.D.N.Y. Sept. 26, 2023) (quoting Jones v. Smith, No. 9:09-cv-1058 (GLS/ATB), 2015 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 131974, *4 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2015) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(a))). “A decision is clearly erroneous where ‘the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left
with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.’” Collymore v. City of
New York, No. 16-cv-8270, 2021 WL 2269538, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. June 3, 2021) (quoting Gualandi
v. Adams, 385 F.3d 236, 240 (2d Cir. 2004) (citation omitted)). “An order is ‘contrary to law when
it fails to apply or misapplies relevant statutes, case law or rules of procedure.’” Id. (quoting
Knitting Fever, Inc. v. Coats Holding Ltd., No. 05-cv-1065, 2005 WL 3050299, at *3 (E.D.N.Y.
Nov. 14, 2005) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). “This standard of review is ‘highly
deferential’; ‘magistrate judges are afforded broad discretion in resolving nondispositive disputes
and reversal is appropriate only if their discretion is abused.’” Id. (quoting Thai Lao Lignite
(Thailand) Co. v. Gov’t of Lao People’s Democratic Republic, 924 F. Supp. 2d 508, 511-12
(S.D.N.Y. 2013) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).
Case 9:21-cv-00826-ECC-PJE Document 224 Filed 03/03/26 Page 3 of 6

4
C. 	Discussion
Plaintiff has not offered any basis for finding that Magistrate Judge Evangelista’s Decision
and Order was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Magistrate Judge Evangelista properly found
that Plaintiff’s motion was untimely. “[A] party seeking to file a motion to compel after discovery
has closed must . . . establish good cause.” Gucci Am., Inc. v. Guess?, Inc., 790 F. Supp. 2d 136,
139 (S.D.N.Y. 2011). Even assuming Plaintiff is entitled to additional solicitude from the Court
because of his pro se status, 2 that status “does not function as a substitute for an actual showing
of good cause.” Morales v. Mackenzie, No. 5:17-cv-124, 2021 WL 1018614, at *2 (D. Vt. Mar.
17, 2021) (citation omitted). Plaintiff has not offered any justification or cause for his late filing.
Indeed, Plaintiff does not address this basis for denial at all in his appeal. To the extent Plaintiff
believed Defendants had improperly failed to turn over certain discovery in conjunction with his
eighth request for document production, he could have brought the issue to the Court’s attention
before the motion to compel deadline passed and fact discovery closed, but he did not. Plaintiff’s
motion to compel was therefore appropriately denied as untimely.
Magistrate Judge Evangelista alternatively denied Plaintiff’s motion to compel on the
merits. Specifically, Magistrate Judge Evangelista reasoned that Plaintiff’s outstanding requests
would not lead to relevant information, were overbroad, and were not proportionate to Plaintiff’s
2 The “appropriate degree of special solicitude is not identical with regard to all pro se litigants.”
Tracy v. Freshwater, 623 F.3d 90, 101–02 (2d Cir. 2010). “The ‘degree of solicitude may be
lessened,’ for example, where a particular pro se litigant is ‘experienced in litigation and familiar
with the procedural setting presented.’” Jeanty v. Sciortino, 669 F. Supp. 3d 96, 107 (N.D.N.Y.
2023) (quoting Tracy, 623 F.3d at 101-02). 	“A court may exercise its discretion, ‘based on the
totality of the relevant circumstances,’ to determine ‘what degree of solicitude, if any, should be
afforded.’” Id. (quoting Tracy, 623 F.3d at 101-02). Here, it appears that Plaintiff has litigated at
least twelve Section 1983 actions as a pro se plaintiff in the Northern District of New York since
2019 concerning the conditions of his confinement in DOCCS custody. 	Given Plaintiff’s
experience in litigation, the Court expects him to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
and this Court’s Local Rules.
Case 9:21-cv-00826-ECC-PJE Document 224 Filed 03/03/26 Page 4 of 6

5
needs to prosecute his case. Dkt. No. 220 at 5-7. These alternative bases to the decision to deny
Plaintiff’s motion to compel were well within Magistrate Judge Evangelista’s discretion. See Botta
v. Barnhart, 475 F. Supp. 2d 174, 185 (E.D.N.Y. 2007) (upholding Magistrate Judge's denial of
motion to compel where requested production “would not establish” a ground for relief); Bellinger
v. Astrue, No. 06-cv-321, 2011 WL 13294967, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 16, 2011) (upholding
Magistrate Judge's denial of motion to compel where additional discovery may have been
impossible or futile).
For all of the above reasons, the Order denying Plaintiff’s motion to compel additional
discovery is affirmed.
III. 	REPORT-RECOMMENDATION ON SUMMARY JUDGMENT
As no objections to the Report-Recommendation have been filed, and the time for filing
objections has expired, the Court reviews the Report-Recommendation for clear error. See
Petersen v. Astrue, 2 F. Supp. 3d 223, 228–29 (N.D.N.Y. 2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory
committee’s note to 1983 amendment. Having reviewed the Report-Recommendation for clear
error and found none, the Court adopts the Report-Recommendation in its entirety.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, it is hereby
ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Evangelista’s January 6, 2026 Memorandum-Decision
and Order denying Plaintiff’s motion to compel further discovery, Dkt. No. 220, is AFFIRMED,
and that Plaintiff’s appeal, Dkt. No. 221, is DENIED; and it is further
ORDERED 	that 	Magistrate 	Judge 	Evangelista’s 	February 	9, 	2026 	Report-
Recommendation, Dkt. No. 223, is ADOPTED in all respects; and it is further
Case 9:21-cv-00826-ECC-PJE Document 224 Filed 03/03/26 Page 5 of 6

6
ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment, Dkt. No. 209, is
GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; and it is further
ORDERED that Defendants’ motion is GRANTED to the extent the following claims are
DISMISSED with prejudice: (1) Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claims against
Defendants Uhler and Bishop; (2) Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect/intervene
claims against Defendants Olsen and Gravlin; and (3) Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation
claims against Defendants Locke, Russell, and Welch; and it is further
ORDERED that Defendants’ motion is in all other respects DENIED, and it is further
ORDERED that the following claims will proceed to trial: (1) Plaintiff’s Eighth
Amendment excessive force/failure-to-intervene claims against Defendants Vesneske, Orbegozo,
Marshall, Locke, Kilcoyne, Russell, Welch, Mitchell, Dumas, Gordon, and McCargar; and (2)
Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claims against Defendants Gordon, Orbegozo, and
Marshall; and it is further
ORDERED that the that the Clerk serve a copy of this Order on the parties in accordance
with the Local Rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 3, 2026
Case 9:21-cv-00826-ECC-PJE Document 224 Filed 03/03/26 Page 6 of 6