Hampton v. Peeples et al

Filing 107

ORDER denying 105 Objection. Signed by Judge J. Randal Hall on 09/26/2016. (thb) Modified on 9/26/2016.

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 Amended Objections to the Magistrate Judge's
August 17, 2016 Order. (Doc. 105). For the reasons set forth below, the Court OVERRULES
Plaintiffs Objections. The Magistrate Judge's Order remains the Order of the Court.
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

August 17, 2016, Order denied all Motions filed by Plaintiff while granting one Motion filed by
Defendant. (Doc. 100.) The Magistrate Judge denied Plaintiffs Motion for Opinion and Expert

Testimony, (doc. 89), and his Motion to Appoint Expert Witness, (doc. 96). The Magistrate

Judge also denied Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Discovery, (doc. 93), and his Motion for Copies
of All Expert Depositions of the Defendant's Expert Witnesses, (doc. 99), as well as Plaintiffs
Motion for Appointment of Counsel (doc. 98.) 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 contrary to law. Rather, through his Objections, Plaintiff

yet again advances 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 six separate occasions, most recently in the Order of August 24, 2016,
"this Court has consistently explained that Plaintiff has 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. 101, p. 2 (internal citations omitted).) Plaintiffs instant Objections provide no reason for
the Court to disturb its numerous denials of appointment of counsel or the other rulings in the
Magistrate Judge's Order.

For all of the foregoing reasons and those stated in the Court's prior Orders, the Court
DENIES Plaintiffs Objections.

SO ORDERED, thiafSp^efav of September, 2016.

HONQRABKE J. RAND&L'HALL
UNITED SJATES DISTRICT JUDGE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA