De Oliveira v. Tenet Healthcare
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:25-cv-01683
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 10
In De Oliveira v. Tenet Healthcare, Judge Stein denied De Oliveira’s motion to disqualify him and strike orders extending deadlines and staying proceedings.
The ruling directly affected Daniel De Oliveira’s request to remove Magistrate Judge Gary Stein and to strike the challenged pretrial orders. It left in place the orders extending defendants’ response deadlines and staying further proceedings.
What happened
Daniel De Oliveira, representing himself, asked to remove Magistrate Judge Gary Stein from five related cases. He argued that Judge Stein lacked authority to extend defendants’ deadlines and pause the cases without De Oliveira’s consent, and he asked the court to strike those orders.
The court explained that extending deadlines and staying proceedings are preliminary matters that a magistrate judge may decide without the parties’ consent. It also found that the defendants covered by the challenged orders were not improperly in default, or that any delay was minor and did not prejudice De Oliveira. The court rejected De Oliveira’s argument that the orders were unlawful or void.
Judge Stein concluded that De Oliveira showed neither personal bias nor a reasonable basis to question the judge’s impartiality. The court denied the disqualification motion and also denied the request to strike the challenged orders; the order states that the motion was denied in its entirety.
The detailed version
- De Oliveira v. Tenet Healthcare · No. 1:25-cv-01683
- Vernon Broderick
- May 19, 2025
Background
Daniel De Oliveira, proceeding without a lawyer, moved under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) and § 455(b)(1) to disqualify United States Magistrate Judge Gary Stein from five consolidated cases. De Oliveira argued that Judge Stein had improperly issued orders extending certain defendants’ deadlines to respond to the complaints and an order staying further proceedings until the applicable defendants filed an answer, motion to dismiss, or other response. De Oliveira also asked the court to strike those orders as void.
The cases had been referred to Judge Stein by District Judge Vernon S. Broderick for general pretrial supervision, including preliminary motions that do not resolve claims or defenses. De Oliveira’s position was that the challenged orders were “dispositive,” meaning they resolved matters that a magistrate judge could not decide without the parties’ consent.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that a magistrate judge may decide nondispositive pretrial matters without the parties’ consent. A matter is dispositive when it resolves a party’s substantive claim or defense or determines whether the case can proceed in federal court. Orders extending the time to respond to a complaint and orders staying proceedings do not resolve claims or defenses, so the court classified the challenged orders as nondispositive.
The court separately addressed De Oliveira’s argument that the orders granted extensions to parties already in default. JAMS and the defendants associated with Pakis, Giotes, Burleson & Deaconson, P.C. requested extensions before their original deadlines expired. Tenet Healthcare requested an extension three days after its deadline, but no default had been entered against Tenet, the delay was minor, and the court found no prejudice to De Oliveira. The court concluded that granting Tenet’s extension was within its discretion and that the timing did not change the nondispositive nature of the request.
The court also rejected De Oliveira’s reliance on his disagreement with Judge Stein’s rulings and on the court’s failure to resolve some of his filings as quickly as he wanted. The court stated that disagreement with judicial decisions and delays in ruling do not establish bias or justify disqualification. Judge Stein stated that he had no personal bias or prejudice against De Oliveira and that a reasonable observer with knowledge of the facts would not question his impartiality.
Disposition
The court denied De Oliveira’s motion for disqualification under both cited provisions of Section 455. It also denied his request to strike the extension orders and stay order. The conclusion states that De Oliveira’s motion was denied in its entirety, and the clerk was directed to close the motion at Docket No. 183.
Read the full 10-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.