Norfleet v. Walker et al

Filing 130

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER construing Objection 98 as Appeal of Magistrate Judge Frazier's Order 92 . The Court denies the appeal as moot. Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 6/9/2011. (dka, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
MARC NORFLEET,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 09-cv-347-JPG-PMF

ROGER E. WALKER, JR.,
Director of IDOC, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Marc Norfleet’s Objection (Doc. 98), which
the Court construes as an appeal of Magistrate Judge Philip M. Frazier’s non-dispositive Order (Doc.
92) of March 1, 2011. See SDIL-LR 73.1(a). Said order construed Defendant Mary Loftin’s Motion
to Dismiss (Doc. 81) as a motion for summary judgment, which the Court has since granted. Doc.
128. Loftin did not respond to the instant appeal.
Norfleet’s appeal is effectively moot because the Court ruled on Loftin’s construed-summary
judgment motion. Even if one ignores that line of reasoning, however, the instant appeal fails to pass
muster. A district court reviewing a magistrate judge’s decision on non-dispositive issues should
only modify or set aside that decision if it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(a); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) (2006). The concerns espoused in Norfleet’s appeal were addressed
by Magistrate Judge Frazier prior to the Court’s ruling on Loftin’s motion; thus, it can hardly be said
that Magistrate Judge Frazier’s order fell below the generous deference afforded him.
Being fully advised of the premises, the Court DENIES the instant appeal as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: June 9, 2011
s/ J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
DISTRICT JUDGE