Norfleet v. Illinois Department of Corrections

Filing 99

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, The Court affirms Magistrate Judge Frazier's January 26, 2015, scheduling and discovery order (doc. 96 ), overrules Norfleet's objection (doc. 97 ), denies Norfleet's motion to strike the scheduling and discovery order (doc. 98 ), and denies Norfleet's motion for reconsideration (doc. 95 ). Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 2/5/2015. (jdh)

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

Case No. 10-cv-626-JPG

ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff Marc Norfleet’s objection (Doc. 97) to
Magistrate Judge Philip M. Frazier’s January 26, 2015, scheduling and discovery order (Doc. 96) and
motion to strike that order (Doc. 98). Norfleet argues the scheduling and discovery order is premature
in light of his outstanding motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. 94) and motion for reconsideration
(Doc. 95) of the Court’s order denying Norfleet leave to file an amended pleading and possibly various
other orders of the Court.
A district court reviewing a magistrate judge’s decision on nondispositive issues should 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). The Court may also sua sponte reconsider any matter determined by a

magistrate judge. L.R. 73.1(a); Schur v. L.A. Weight Loss Ctrs., Inc., 577 F.3d 752, 760 (7th Cir.
2009).
The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Frazier’s scheduling and discovery order and finds it
is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Further, the Court declines to reconsider the scheduling and
discovery order or any other matters it has previously decided in this case, including but not limited to
its decision not to allow Norfleet to file an amended pleading nearly two years beyond the deadline.
For these reasons, the Court:


AFFIRMS Magistrate Judge Frazier’s January 26, 2015, scheduling and discovery order (Doc.

96);


OVERRULES Norfleet’s objection (Doc. 97);



DENIES Norfleet’s motion to strike the scheduling and discovery order (Doc. 98); and



DENIES Norfleet’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. 95).

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: February 5, 2015
s/J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
DISTRICT JUDGE

2