UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________

No. 24-1711 __________

MICHAEL GORRIO, Appellant

v. CORRECTIONAL OFFICER FRANCIS; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER CARASELLY; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER FETCHCO; SERGEANT WALSHAN; LIEUTENANT ROBERT RHODES; LIEUTENANT PARKER; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER EMMINGER; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER POLAND; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER SCOLES; SUPERINTENDENT MARK V. CAPOZZA; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER EVANS; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER TERRAVECHIA; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER DICKS; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER ROCKRIDGE; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER HAILEY; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER BURRIE; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER MINOR; SERGEANT MCKILEEN; LIEUTENANT ALBERT WOOD; LIEUTENANT DAILEY; LIEUTENANT RUSNAK; EDWARD BOHNA; BRITTANY KIMMEL; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER REGINA; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER COX; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER OHRMAN; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER TWARDZIK; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER SAXION; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER HENRY; SERGEANT HAINES; SERGEANT WILES; DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; JOHN DOE, Other Unknown Officers; JANE DOE, Other Unknown Medical Personnel; JOHN DOE, Other Unknown Sergeants; JOHN DOE, Other Unknown Lieutenants; RHONDA HOUSE, Superintendent Assistant; LUIS ALLEN; BETH RUDZINSKI ____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil Action No. 2:19-cv-01297) District Judge: Honorable J. Nicholas Ranjan ____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) April 22, 2025

Before: BIBAS, FREEMAN, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges.

(Opinion filed ) Michael Gorrio Indiana, PA

Pro se Appellant Daniel B. Mullen Office of Attorney General of Pennsylvania Appellate Litigation Section 1251 Waterfront Place

2 Mezzanine Level Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Hannah Kogan Office of Attorney General of Pennsylvania 1600 Arch Street Suite 300 Philadelphia, PA 19103

Counsel for Appellees ___________

OPINION OF THE COURT ___________ PER CURIAM

Pro se appellant Michael Gorrio appeals from the District Court’s order denying his motion for a new trial after the jury verdict and final judgment. He also appeals from various pre-trial orders entered by the District Court concerning the scope of discovery and amendment of Gorrio’s complaint.

The limitations that the District Court placed on discovery impermissibly conflict with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. However, to obtain relief, Gorrio must demonstrate prejudice from the improper limitations. He has not done so. Seeing no other errors in the challenged orders, we will affirm the judgment.

I.

3 Michael Gorrio is a Pennsylvania state prisoner. In 2019, he filed a complaint against numerous Correctional Defendants alleging a variety of constitutional and statutory violations pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the RICO Act, the Hobbs Act, the Clayton Act, and Pennsylvania law. 1 Pursuant to the District Court’s standing practice order for all civil rights cases filed by pro se incarcerated plaintiffs, a Magistrate Judge was assigned to perform certain tasks. Among other things, the Magistrate Judge was responsible for deciding non-dispositive motions and managing discovery.

After several claims in Gorrio’s complaint withstood a motion to dismiss, the Magistrate Judge issued a case- management order. That order stated that “no formal discovery, such as depositions, interrogatories, requests for production or requests for admission will be allowed in this case without leave of court.” Dist. Ct. ECF No. 117 at 1. However, the order