Butler v. Brammlet

Filing 40

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, Plaintiff Kendrick Butlers Motion (Doc. 39 ) toObject to Court Ruling is DENIED. Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 7/29/2015. (jdh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
KENDRICK BUTLER,
Plaintiff,
vs.
BRADD BRAMMLET,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 14-cv-00537-JPG-PMF

ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on the Plaintiff Kendrick Butler’s Motion (Doc. 39)
to Object to Court Ruling (Doc. 38) for Motion to Adduce List of Witnesses, et al., which the
Court has construed as an Objection of Magistrate Judge’s Decision under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 72 and Local Rule 73.1(a).
The Plaintiff filed a Motion to Supplement (Doc. 34) and a Motion to Adduce List of
Witnesses (Doc. 37) which were denied by Magistrate Judge Philip M. Frazier (Doc. 38). In his
Motion to Object, Plaintiff states that he is denied resources, lacks a law degree, and that the
Court, “. . . seems to never at all consider these facts before making a ruling.” Plaintiff’s Motion
to Object further states that, “. . . his list of witnesses be recognized as part of the Discovery
Phase.”
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). Accordingly, the Court will affirm Magistrate Judge Frazier’s
decision unless his factual findings are clearly erroneous or his legal conclusions are contrary to
law. Id.

Page 1 of 2

Magistrate Judge Frazier’s order clearly states that the Plaintiff’s list of witnesses should
not be filed with the Court at this time and then provides further guidance on when such a list
would be appropriate to submit to the Court. However, instead of heeding the Magistrate
Judge’s advice, Plaintiff filed an Objection to ruling and states that the Court is, “. . .not acting
impartial which giving their decisions.”
Courts are not obliged to craft arguments or perform necessary legal research for pro se
litigants to cure substantive deficiencies. See Anderson v. Hardman, 241 F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir.
2001); Pelfresne v. Village of Williams Bay, 917 F.2d 1017, 1023 (7th Cir. 1990).
In this matter, the Magistrate Judge has provided additional guidance in his orders that
would likely not be given if the plaintiff was represented by counsel. Plaintiff’s Motion does not
state why his list of witnesses should be admitted at this stage in the litigation or why it could not
be attached to a summary judgment motion or response. Although Plaintiff states that he has no
resources and is delayed by the institutional mail system, Plaintiff was able to file his objection
within three (3) days of the order and previously submitted objections within a week of an order
and had the writing materials in which to draft the objections.
The Court has reviewed the Magistrate’s Order (Doc. 38) and finds that it is not clearly
erroneous or contrary to law. Accordingly, Plaintiff Kendrick Butler’s Motion (Doc. 39) to
Object to Court Ruling is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: 7/29/2015
s/J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 2 of 2