Brestle v. Hastings et al

Filing 54

ORDER overruling Plaintiff's 53 OBJECTION/MOTION to 51 Order on Motion to Appoint Counsel. The Magistrate Judge's 8/12/16, Order remains the Order of the Court, and this case remains CLOSED. Signed by Chief Judge Lisa G. Wood on 10/27/2016. (ca)

3ht the Wntteb Statas Jitritt Court
for the boutbern flitrict of georgia
Orunotakk Aibigion
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

GARY CHARLES BRESTLE,
Plaintiff,
V.

SUSAN R. HASTINGS, et al.,
Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 2:15-cv-12

ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff's Objection to the Magistrate
Judge's August 12, 2016, Order denying Plaintiff's Motion to
Appoint Counsel. (Dkt. No. 53.) For the reasons set forth
below, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff's Objections.
Plaintiff filed this cause of action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1331 and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal
Bureau of Narcotics, 402 U.S. 388 (1971), contesting certain
conditions of his confinement. (Dkt. No. 1.) Plaintiff
essentially contended that Defendants retaliated against him for
acting as an informant and attempted to stifle his speech and
his legal actions. (Id.) The Court dismissed Plaintiff's
Complaint on February 5, 2016, and denied Plaintiff's Motion for
Reconsideration on July 19, 2016.

AO 72A
(Rev. 8/82)

(Dkt. Nos. 40, 47.)

Plaintiff then filed a Motion to Appoint Counsel on August 8,
2016, (dkt. no. 48), which the Magistrate Judge denied on
August 12, 2016, (dkt. no. 51) . Plaintiff objects to the
Magistrate Judge's denial of his Motion to Appoint Counsel to
assist him with this case.
A district judge must consider a party's objections to a
magistrate judge's order. See 28 U.S.C. 9 636(b) (1) (A); Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(a). However, the district judge may modify or set
aside that order, and reconsider the matter, only "where it has
been shown that the magistrate judge's order is clearly
erroneous or contrary to law." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (1) (A); see
also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). "Clear error is a highly
deferential standard of review. As the Supreme Court has
explained, a finding is 'clearly erroneous' when although there
is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire
evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a
mistake has been committed." Holton v. City of Thomasville Sch.
Dist., 425 F.3d 1325, 1350 (11th Cir. 2005) (internal citations
and quotation marks omitted). "A decision by the magistrate
judge is contrary to law where it fails to follow or misapplies
the applicable law." Jackson

Deen, No. CV 412-L39, 2013 WL

V.

3963989, at *3 (S.D. Ga. July 25, 2013) (citation omitted)
Having reviewed Plaintiff's Objections, the Court does not
find that the Magistrate Judge's Order was clearly erroneous or

AO 72A
(Rev. 8/82)

(I

2

contrary to law. The Court CONCURS with the Magistrate Judge's
denial of Plaintiff's Motion and need not rehash that analysis.
Consequently, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff's Objections. The
Magistrate Judge's August 12, 2016, Order remains the Order of
the Court, and this case remains CLOSED.
SO ORDERED,

this

2-7

dayØ'

LISA
UNIT.
SOUT:

AO 72A
(Rev. 8182)

I

WOOD, CHIEF JUDGE
ZTES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

3
3

2016.