White v. Jindal et al

Filing 200

ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFFS OBJECTIONS (Doc. 199) AND ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGES ORDERS (Docs. 191, 194) AND ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGES REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 192) Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (MVer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MARK WHITE,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 13-15073
HON. AVERN COHN

PAUL KLEE, LEE McROBERTS,
and C. CONDON,
Defendants.
___________________________________/
ORDER
OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS (Doc. 199)
AND
ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S ORDERS (Docs. 191, 194)
AND
ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 192)

This is a prisoner civil rights case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is proceeding
pro se and in forma pauperis (IFP). The matter has been referred to a magistrate judge
for all pretrial proceedings. (Doc. 12). Following motion practice and reports and
recommendation (MJRR) which were adopted by the Court, Paul Klee, Lee McRoberts
and C. Condon, remain as defendants. They are employed by the Michigan Department
of Corrections (MDOC). Plaintiff claims that these defendants have violated his Eighth
Amendment rights by placing him in danger from other inmates.
On June 6, 2017, the magistrate judge issued an order disposing of several
pending non-dispositive motions, as follows:
1.

Denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 170)

2.

Denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Improper Response & Request for
Admonishment/sanctions (Doc. 173).

3.

Denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Response to Interrogatories/discovery
and for Contempt Fines Fees and Costs (Doc. 183)

4.

Denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Provide Copies of Docket 160 at State
Expense (Doc. 186)

5.

Denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel/order Discovery (Doc. 188)

6.

Granting Defendants’ Motion for Leave to Depose Prisoner Witnesses (Doc.
181)

(Doc. 191).
Also on June 6, 2017, the magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation
(MJRR) recommending the disposition of the following two pending motions:
1.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Injunction/Restraining Order (Doc. 174) be
denied.

2.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Contempt & Hearing (Doc. 179) be denied.

(Doc. 192).
On June 15, 2016, the magistrate judge issued another order disposing of the
following non-dispositive motions:
1.

Denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce/Compel Discovery Inspection and
Contempt of Court by Non-Party Correction Personnel (Doc. 175)

2.

Denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Expedite Hearing on Injunction and Motion to
Compel Discovery (Doc. 178)

(Doc. 194).
Before the Court are plaintiff’s appeal from the orders (Docs. 191, 194) and
objections to the MJRR (Doc. 192).1
II.
When a party files timely objections to a magistrate judge's opinion and order
concerning a non-dispositive matter, the district judge “must consider [these] objections
and modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to
1

Plaintiff also filed a “Motion to Admit Relevant Evidence...” (Doc. 198). The
motion is GRANTED.

2

law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).

A district court must conduct a de novo review of the parts of a magistrate
judge's report and recommendation to which a party objects. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The district "court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate" judge. Id.
III.
Having carefully reviewed the magistrate judge’s orders and MJRR in light of
plaintiff’s objections, the Court is satisfied that the magistrate judge fully considered
plaintiff’s arguments and did not err in any ruling or recommendation. Plaintiff’s objections
are mostly a repetition of arguments addressed and rejected by the magistrate judge.
Accordingly, plaintiff’s objections to the magistrate judge’s orders are
OVERRULED. The Court ADOPTS the magistrate judge’s orders in full.
Plaintiff’s objections to the MJRR are OVERRULED and the MJRR is ADOPTED
as the findings and conclusions of the Court. Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary
Injunction/Restraining Order (Doc. 174) is DENIED. Plaintiff’s Motion for Contempt &
Hearing (Doc. 179) is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 27, 2017
Detroit, Michigan

S/Avern Cohn
AVERN COHN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3