Hampton v. Peeples et al

Filing 101

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 88 Objections re 87 Order. Signed by Judge J. Randal Hall on 08/24/2016. (thb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
STATESBORO DIVISION

NORMAN HAMPTON, III,
Plaintiff,

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 6:14-cv-104

v.

MATT PEEBLES,
Defendant.

ORDER

Before the Court are Plaintiffs Objections to the Magistrate Judge's June 9, 2016 Order.
(Doc. 87.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiffs Objections.
Plaintiff, who is incarcerated at Macon State Prison in Oglethorpe, Georgia, filed this

cause of action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff contests certain conditions of his past

confinement at Rogers State Prison in Reidsville, Georgia. (Doc. 1.) The Magistrate Judge's
June 9, 2016 Order denied several Motions filed by Plaintiff while granting others. (Doc. 87.)

The Magistrate Judge denied Plaintiffs Motion for Subpoena, (doc. 67), and his Motions for
Production of Official Files of the Georgia Department of Corrections, (docs. 79, 81). The

Magistrate Judge also denied Plaintiffs Motion for Expert Medical Examiner and Witness
Testimony, (doc. 68), and his Motion for Expert Medical Examination by a Licensed

Chiropractor, (doc. 74), as well as Plaintiffs Fourth and Fifth Motions for Appointment of
Counsel (docs. 78, 86.) Plaintiff objects to each of these denials.

A district judge must consider a party's objections to a magistrate judge's order on a

pretrial matter. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). However, the district judge

may modify or set aside that order, and reconsider the pretrial 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 v. Deen. No. CV 4I2-L39, 2013 WL 3963989, at *3 (S.D. Ga. July 25,
2013) (citation omitted).

Having reviewed Plaintiffs Objections, the Court does not find that the Magistrate

Judge's Order was clearly erroneous or contraryto law. Rather, through his Objections, Plaintiff
continues to advance meritless arguments, all of which this Court has already rejected. For

instance, Plaintiff continues to request that this Court appoint him counsel. However, as the

undersigned stated on March 26, 2016, "this Court has consistently explained that Plaintiffhas
no constitutional right to counsel in this civil action and that this case does not present

extraordinary circumstances warranting the appointment of counsel. Indeed, the undersigned

analyzed whether Plaintiff needed counsel at length when affirming the denial of Plaintiffs
Second Motion for Appointment of Counsel." (Doc. 72, p. 4 (internal citations omitted).)
Plaintiffs instant Objections provide no reason for the Court to disturb its numerous denials of
appointment of counsel.

Likewise, the Court concurs with the Magistrate Judge's analysis of the remainder of
Plaintiffs Motions. The Court need not rehash that analysis. However, the Court specifically

addresses Plaintiffs statement regarding the filing of discovery materials on the Court's docket.
The Magistrate Judge explained '"[d]iscovery materials should not be filed routinely with the
Clerk of Court; exceptions include: when the Court directs filing; when a party needs such
materials in connection with a motion or response, and then only to the extent necessary; and
when needed for use at trial.'" (Doc. 87, p. 3 (emphasis in original) (quoting doc. 19, p. 10
(citing Local Rule 26.4)).) In his Objections, Plaintiff states that it is "the norms of prison pro-se
litigation to serve the Court and the defendant(s) or the defendant(s) attorney's [sic]" with

discovery materials.

Plaintiff is mistaken.

As the Court has now repeatedly explained to

Plaintiff, under this Court's local rules, he shall not file discovery requests on the Court's docket.
Rather, Plaintiff should use the traditional methods of discovery to obtain facts and information

from Defendant, and he should send his requests to Defendant's counsel. If Defendant does not

provide the requested information, Plaintiff must then make a good faith effort to resolve that

dispute with Defendant's counsel. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) & 37(a)(2)(A); Local Rule 26.7. The
Court once again reminds Plaintiff that he should come to the Court for assistance with discovery

only if his efforts at resolution with Defendant's counsel are unsuccessful.
For all of the foregoing reasons and those stated in the Court's prior Orders, the Court
DENIES Plaintiffs Objections.

SO ORDERED, this^V^av ofAugust, 2016.

HONORABidEHFrRANDAL HALL
UNITED STMES DISTRICT JUDGE

vSOUTHERN4)ISTRICT OF GEORGIA