Kenneth R. Fisher

U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York magistrate Retired 1995 · served 1988–1995 18 signed orders read

Judge Fisher no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

United States v. Padilla
· 1992-02-05
Motion for return of property (claimants) Granted in part

“This is my Report and Recommendation that claimants’ Rule 41(e) motion be (1) dismissed insofar as it concerns the subject of the separate forfeiture action filed with the court, (2) denied without a hearing insofar as it concerns property not listed in the forfeiture action but which the government claims a right to hold as evidence of crime, and (3) granted insofar as it concerns property the government identified in its papers would be returned to claimants.”

Breads v. Moehrle
· 1991-12-10
Motion to amend complaint (plaintiff) Granted

“defendant’s motion for an order directing plaintiff to file an amended complaint with numbered paragraphs, and plaintiff’s motion for an order granting leave to file an amended complaint, be granted.”

Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment each be denied.”

Summary judgment (defendant) Denied
United States v. Villano
· 1989-11-09
Motion for continuance (joint) Granted

“The joint motion for a continuance is granted in the interests of justice.”

United States v. Florack
· 1993-11-18
Application for subpoena duces tecum (defendants) Denied

“Magistrate Judge Fisher denied the request on the ground that Rule 17(c) does not permit a subpoena duces tecum to be issued ex parte.”

United States v. Urlacher
· 1991-04-02
Application for subpoena duces tecum (defendant) Denied

“defendant’s ex parte motion for issuance of subpoenas duces tecum described above is denied without prejudice.”

Klos v. Haskell
· 1993-09-17
Request for appointment of counsel (plaintiff) Denied

“Plaintiffs request for appointment of counsel, his three motions to compel, and defendants’ motion for a protective order are denied.”

Motion to supplement complaint (plaintiff) Denied

“plaintiffs motion for injunctive relief be denied as moot, and that his motions to supplement the complaint and for summary judgment also be denied.”

Preliminary injunction (plaintiff) Moot / procedural

“His motion for injunctive relief is therefore moot and dismissed as such.”

Motion to compel discovery (plaintiff) Moot / procedural

“Accordingly, plaintiffs motions to compel and defendants’ motion for a protective order are denied and dismissed as moot.”

Motion to compel discovery (plaintiff) Moot / procedural
Motion to compel discovery (plaintiff) Moot / procedural
Motion for protective order (defendants) Moot / procedural
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied
Summary judgment (defendants) Granted

“defendants’ motion for summary judgment be granted and the complaint be dismissed as against all defendants.”

Van Emrik v. Chemung County Department of Social Services
· 1988-06-06
Motion to compel discovery (plaintiffs) Granted

“the motion to compel disclosure of the Chemung County DSS file is granted.”

United States v. Scanio
· 1988-09-22
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“Defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment is denied for all of the reasons stated in the Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation.”

Martin v. Lamb
· 1988-09-28
Motion for in camera review (plaintiff) Granted

“Plaintiff’s motion for a court order or subpoena for an in camera review of the service records of defendant police officers is hereby granted as indicated herein.”

Ann L. v. X Corp.
· 1990-10-16
Motion for protective order (plaintiffs) Granted

“The motion for a protective order, including suppression, is granted. The motion for disqualification of defense counsel is denied.”

Motion to disqualify counsel (plaintiffs) Denied
United States v. Florack
· 1994-04-21
Motion for reconsideration (government) Granted

“The foregoing is the court’s Decision and Order granting the government’s motion for reconsideration, and vacating the oral order granting defendants’ motion to strike the suppression hearing testimony of Gates Police Officer John Sehraml.”

Motions to strike (defendants) Denied

“This is also my Report and Recommendation that defendants’ motion to strike (i.e., suppress Schraml’s testimony) be denied.”

Santiago v. Miles
· 1988-07-26
Motion to compel discovery (plaintiffs) Granted in part

“The motion to compel discovery of the computer material sent to assistant counsel Barrantes is denied, and a protective order is hereby granted as to it. The motion to compel discovery of the computer material of the second category sent to Richard Cerio is granted as indicated herein.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

The sole exact-name assigned matter located was a 1994 criminal magistrate case. Its nine-entry docket records an initial appearance, detention scheduling, a detention order, and a later status conference. This single matter does not support a broader caseload, duration, or timing claim.

A historical record

Judge Fisher no longer hears cases. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.