Corsetti v. Hackel et al

Filing 41

ORDER Overruling 40 Objection filed by Joseph Corsetti. Signed by District Judge David M. Lawson. (DTof)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JOSEPH CORSETTI,
Plaintiff,
Case Number 10-12823
Honorable David M. Lawson
Magistrate Judge Michael J. Hluchaniuk

v.
MARK A. HACKEL, SGT. CAMPAU, SGT.
SCHULTZ, SGT. B. KUTELL, DEPUTY
MASAKOWSKI, DEPUTY MAZZARELLI,
DEPUTY METRY, DEPUTY FURNO, JANE
DOE, VALERIE WATKINS, and JOHN DOE,
Defendants.
________________________________________/

ORDER OVERRULING THE PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE
HLUCHANIUK’S ORDER DENYING THE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO BE HOUSED
AT MDOC MACOMB REGIONAL FACILITY
On May 16, 2011, Magistrate Judge Michael J. Hluchaniuk issued an order denying the
plaintiff’s motion to be housed at Michigan Department of Corrections’ Macomb Regional Facility.
The plaintiff filed objections to this order on June 2, 2011, in which he explains that he does not
want to be transferred to the Macomb County Jail because that facility has a poor law library, he
believes that he will have a negative relationship with deputies in the jail which may restrict his
access to the law library, and the jail does not provide indigent inmates with ink pens or other
writing supplies to correspond with the Court.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), a Magistrate Judge has the authority “to hear and determine
any pretrial matter pending before the court,” with certain exceptions that do not apply here. 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72 permits parties a fourteen day window
after service of the order to object. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). Upon receiving objections, this Court
reviews an order by a magistrate judge on a non-dispositive matter to determine whether the decision

is “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” 28 U.S.C. § 363(b)(1)(A); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a)
(stating that upon receipt of timely objections, “[t]he district judge to whom the case is assigned
shall consider such objections and shall modify or set aside any portion of the magistrate judge’s
order found to be clearly erroneous or contrary to law”); United States v. Curtis, 237 F.3d 598, 603
(6th Cir. 2001). A decision is “clearly erroneous” when, “although there is evidence to support it,
the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake
has been committed.” United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948). Where
there are two plausible views, a decision cannot be “clearly erroneous.” Anderson v. City of
Bessemer City, N. Car., 470 U.S. 564, 573 (1985).
Magistrate Judge Hluchaniuk denied the motion for a specific placement after finding that
the plaintiff did not have a constitutional right to be incarcerated in a particular facility and granting
this requested relief would require unwarranted federal court interference with the State’s operation
of its prisons. See Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 482-83 (1995); Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S.
238, 245 (1983). Although the plaintiff asserts in his objections that he is not asking the Court to
interfere with State operations, he does not explain how federal court action would not interfere with
an area in the State’s control. He also fails to present any argument that the magistrate judge’s
decision was clearly erroneous. Therefore, the Court has no basis on which to find that Judge
Hluchaniuk’s decision was “clearly erroneous” and will overrule the objections.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the plaintiff’s objections [dkt #40] to the magistrate
judge’s order are OVERRULED.

s/David M. Lawson
DAVID M. LAWSON
-2-

United States District Judge
Dated: June 9, 2011

PROOF OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served
upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first
class U.S. mail on June 9, 2011.
s/Deborah R. Tofil
DEBORAH R. TOFIL

-3-