Freeman v. Atchison et al

Filing 42

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, The Court AFFIRMS Magistrate Judge Fraziers February 3, 2015, order (Doc. 28 ) and OVERRULES Williams objections (Doc. 40 ). Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 5/15/2015. (jdh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
GEOFFREY W. FREEMAN,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 14-cv-614-JPG-PMF

MICHAEL ATCHISON, SALVADOR GODINEZ and
KIM BUTLER,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff Geoffrey W. Freeman’s objection (Doc.
40) to Magistrate Judge Philip M. Frazier’s February 3, 2015, order (Doc. 28) granting the
defendants’ motion to compel responses to their discovery requests regarding the issue of
exhaustion of administrative remedies (Doc. 22) and denying Freeman’s motion to strike the
defendants’ motion (Doc. 23). Magistrate Judge Frazier explained that even if the defendants had
not raised exhaustion as an affirmative defense, discovery regarding exhaustion was within the
broad scope of permissible discovery. Freeman now objects to having to respond to discovery
requests regarding exhaustion and fears his responses may be construed as a waiver of his
objection to the affirmative defense of exhaustion. He claims he did not receive a copy of
Magistrate Judge Frazier’s February 3, 2015, order at the time it was entered and did not even
know it was entered until he obtained a copy of the docket sheet on April 7, 2015. He finally
received a copy of the order when it was resent to him via the prison e-filing arrangement on April
22, 2015.
A litigant may object to a magistrate judge’s order by filing an objection within fourteen
days of the order to which objection is made. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 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).
As a preliminary matter, Freeman’s objection is timely because he did not receive
Magistrate Judge Frazier’s February 3, 2015, order until April 22, 2015, and he filed his objection
within fourteen days. However, Magistrate Judge Frazier’s February 3, 2015, ruling was not
clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Facts relating to Freeman’s exhaustion of his administrative
remedies are within the scope of permissible discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
26(b)(2), that is, they are relevant and non-privileged. Furthermore, Freeman will not waive any
objection to an exhaustion defense by complying with discovery rules and court orders. The
Court further sees no reason to reconsider Magistrate Judge Frazier’s decision. Accordingly, the
Court AFFIRMS Magistrate Judge Frazier’s February 3, 2015, order (Doc. 28) and
OVERRULES Williams’ objections (Doc. 40).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: May 15, 2015
s/ J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
DISTRICT JUDGE

2