White v. Illinois Department of Corrections et al

Filing 66

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Overruling 55 APPEAL OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION to District Court by Donnie D White re 53 Order on Motion for Protective Order filed by Donnie D White, Overruling 64 APPEAL OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION to District Court by Donnie D White re 63 Order on Motion for Protective Order, filed by Donnie D White. Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 10/29/12. (bkl)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
DONNIE D. WHITE,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Case No. 11-cv-543-JPG

ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff’s appeals (Docs. 55 & 64) of Magistrate
Judge Philip M. Frazier’s August 16, 2012, and October 15, 2012 orders (Docs. 53 & 63).
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. Local Rule 73.1(a); Schur v. L.A. Weight Loss Ctrs., Inc., 577
F.3d 752, 760 (7th Cir. 2009).
Plaintiff’s appeals (Docs. 55 & 64) both appeal Magistrate Judge Frazier’s decisions to
deny plaintiff’s motions for protective orders (Docs. 53 & 63). The subject of both appeals
concerns plaintiff’s motions for protective orders requesting the Court order prison staff to turn
over confiscated legal materials to plaintiff. In both orders, Magistrate Judge Frazier explained
that the Court has no authority over persons who are not defendants in this lawsuit. Further,
Magistrate Judge Frazier explained that defendant must resolve any disputes with prison staff
through the prison’s internal dispute resolution system before bringing those disputes to the
Court. Plaintiff refers to an order from the Honorable Michael J. Reagan in White v. Hinsley, et

al., Case No. 05-cv-594-MJR, Doc. 242, as authority for granting such a protective order. In that
order, Judge Reagan found plaintiff’s failure to attend a deposition was substantially justified
because prison staff withheld plaintiff’s legal papers. Judge Reagan, however, did not order
prison staff to turn over papers to plaintiff. Accordingly, Judge Reagan’s referenced order is
inapposite to plaintiff’s present motions.
The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Frazier’s orders denying plaintiff’s motions
and finds that they are neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. Thus, the Court AFFIRMS
the August 16, 2012, and the October 15, 2012, orders (Doc. 53 & 63) and OVERRULES
plaintiff’s appeals (Doc. 55 & 64).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: October 29, 2012
s/ J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
DISTRICT JUDGE

2