Buck v. Young et al

Filing 106

ORDER denying 105 APPEAL OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISIONS to District Court by William Buck re 103 Order on Motion to Compel; 104 Order on Motion to Compel. The Court affirms Magistrate Judge Daly's two June 20, 2018 Orders and denies plaintiff's appeal from same. Signed by Judge David R. Herndon on 7/3/2018. (ceh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
WILLIAM BUCK, #R-21689,
Plaintiff,
v.

No. 17-270-DRH-RJD

DENNIS YOUNG, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM and ORDER
HERNDON, District Judge:
Pending before the Court is plaintiff’s appeal of Magistrate Judge Daly’s
Orders denying two motions to compel (docs. 90; 101).

Specifically, plaintiff

appeals two June 20, 2018 Orders issued by Judge Daly which deny his requests to
have the Court compel defendants to respond to certain discovery requests,
including requests for admission, requests to produce, and interrogatories. (Docs.;
103; 104).

Plaintiff argues that all he “wants is fairness and he is entitled to

meaningful discovery according to Fed. R. C. Proc. #26, #33, #34, and #36.
Without it he is severly [sic] prejudiced[.]” Doc. 105 at 2.

Plaintiff further argues

that the defendants are depriving him of any meaningful discovery and that
Magistrate Judge Daly has a clear “bias and prejudice against plaintiff” due to her
granting defendants’ motions for extension of time to file discovery responses.
at 1; see also, Orders granting extension requests at docs. 89; 94; 102.
Page 1 of 4

Id.

Based on

the following, the Court affirms Magistrate Judge Daly’s June 20, 2018 Orders and
denies plaintiff’s appeal.1
Local Rule 73.1(a) of the Southern District of Illinois provides:
(a)
Appeal of Non-Dispostive Matters – 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(A)
Any party may appeal a Magistrate Judge’s order determining a
motion or matter within 14 days after issuance of a Magistrate Judge’s
order, unless a different time is prescribed by the Magistrate Judge or
a District Judge. The party shall file with the Clerk of the Court and
serve on all parties a written request for an appeal which shall
specifically designate the order or part of the order that the parties
wish the Court to reconsider. A District Judge shall reconsider the
matter and shall set aside any portion of the Magistrate Judge’s order
found to be clearly erroneous or contrary to the law. A District Judge
may also reconsider sua sponte any matter determined by a
Magistrate Judge under this rule.
Also, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), the Court may modify or
reverse a magistrate judge on a non-dispostive issue upon a showing that the
magistrate judge’s decision is “clearly erroneous or contrary to the law.”
Specifically, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) provides:
Nondispositive Matters. When a pretrial matter not dispositive
of a party’s claim or defense is referred to a magistrate judge to hear
and decide, the magistrate judge must promptly conduct the required
proceedings, and when appropriate, issue a written order stating the
decision. A party may serve and file objections to the order within 14
days after being served with a copy. A party may not assign as error a
defect in the order not timely objected to. The district judge in the case
must consider timely objections and modify or set aside any part of the
order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to the law.
A finding is clearly erroneous when “the reviewing court on the entire evidence is
1 The Court does not need a response from the other parties to address this review and appeal.

Page 2 of 4

left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.”
Anderson v. City of Bessemer, 470 U.S. 564, 573 (1985) (quoting United States v.
United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948); see also Weeks v. Samsung
Heavy Industries Co. Ltd., 126 F.3d 926, 943 (7th Cir. 1997) (“The clear error
standard means that the district court can overturn the magistrate judge’s ruling
only if the district court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake
has been made.”).
Here, plaintiff’s review and appeal misses the mark. Regarding the Order
at docket entry 104, the response date for defendants to respond to plaintiff’s
discovery requests has not yet passed. Thus, there is nothing to compel the
defendants to produce or file.

Clearly, there is no finding of Judge Daly’s

contrary to law in denying the June 19, 2018 motion to compel (doc. 101).
Regarding the Order at docket entry 103, the Court also finds no clear error of
law.

Plaintiff’s April 19, 2018 motion to compel (doc. 90) speaks only in general

terms, broadly arguing that defendants refuse to comply with the “spirit of
discovery.”

See id. at 1.

Specifically, plaintiff takes offense with defendants

objecting to his discovery requests and states “there wasn’t any good faith effort
to move discovery forward.”

Id. at 2.

Plaintiff additionally alleges that the

Court has shown “favoritism” and “bias” in favor of defendants.

Id. at 1.

Plaintiff has not demonstrated through his motion any prejudice against him via
defendant’s discovery responses and/or the Court’s granting of defendant’s
motions for extension of time to serve discovery requests. As Judge Daly stated
Page 3 of 4

in her Order, plaintiff must write with particularity each of defendants’
responses he objects to and why he believes the response circumvents the
purpose of discovery. An overarching accusation that the discovery process is
not proceeding accordingly will not do.
Judge Daly’s Orders denying plaintiff’s motions to compel are to the point
and clearly set out the reasoning for her rulings.

The Court finds that plaintiff

has not established that Magistrate Daly’s Orders were clearly erroneous or
contrary to the law. There is no reason for this Court to vacate Judge Daly’s
Orders.
Accordingly, the Court AFFIRMS Magistrate Judge Daly’s June 20, 2018
Orders (docs. 103; 104) and DENIES plaintiff’s appeal of Magistrate Judge Daly’s
Orders (doc. 105).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Judge Herndon
2018.07.03 12:49:41
-05'00'
United States District Judge

Page 4 of 4