Waldron v. Gaetz et al

Filing 76

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, the Court AFFIRMS the order (Doc. 67 ) and OVERRULES the defendants appeal (Doc. 75 ). Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 10/25/2012. (jdh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
JOHN WALDRON,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 11-cv-242-JPG-PMF

DONALD GAETZ, et al.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff John Waldron’s appeal (Doc. 75) of
Magistrate Judge Philip M. Frazier’s October 10, 2012, order (Doc. 67) granting in part and
denying in part Waldron’s motion to compel (Doc. 38). In his order, Magistrate Judge Frazier
sustained a number of objections to Waldron’s discovery requests because Waldron had not
shown the materials he requested are relevant or would help him locate information pertaining to
his procedural due process claim or a defense.
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).
Waldron objects that Magistrate Judge Frazier ignored his request for appointment of
counsel. Waldron’s motion to compel made no such request.
Waldron also argues Magistrate Judge Frazier applied the wrong standard to his
discovery requests. The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Frazier’s October 10, 2012, order

and finds that it is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The Court further sees no reason to
reconsider Magistrate Judge Frazier’s ruling. Accordingly, the Court AFFIRMS the order (Doc.
67) and OVERRULES the defendant’s appeal (Doc. 75).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: October 25, 2012
s/ J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
DISTRICT JUDGE

2