Bills et al v. Klee

Filing 113

ORDER Overruling Plaintiff's 111 Objection to 107 Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HMon)

Case 2:15-cv-11414-MFL-DRG ECF No. 113, PageID.1255 Filed 08/03/21 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
RICKEY BILLS,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 15-cv-11414
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman

v.
PAUL KLEE, et al.,
Defendants.
__________________________________________________________________/
ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTION (ECF No. 111) TO
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION (ECF No. 107)
Plaintiff Rickey Bills is a state inmate in the custody of the Michigan
Department of Corrections. In this prisoner civil-rights action, Bills alleges that the
Defendants interfered with his right to access the courts and retaliated against him
for filing lawsuits. (See Sec. Am. Compl., ECF No. 67.)
On June 14, 2021, Bills filed a motion in which it appeared that he asked for
certain records be provided to him. (See Mot., ECF No. 103.) The motion was
difficult to follow. The assigned Magistrate Judge did his best to review the motion,
and on July 12, 2021, he denied it. (See Order, ECF No. 107.) The Magistrate Judge
explained that to the extent that Bills appeared to be requesting a transcript of a prior
status conference, “the records Bills seeks do not appear to exist.” (Id.,
PageID.1128.) The Magistrate Judge further noted that to the extent that Bills was
1

Case 2:15-cv-11414-MFL-DRG ECF No. 113, PageID.1256 Filed 08/03/21 Page 2 of 3

seeking documents from the Defendants, he could have (and should have) requested
those documents during discovery. (See id., PageID.1128-1129.)
Bills has now filed an objection to the Magistrate Judge’s denial of his motion.
(See Obj., ECF No. 111.) The substance of the objection is one sentence:
At no time in this Plaintiff Rickey Bills “motion” that he
requested for an appointment of an attorney/counsel? In
(ECF No. 103) Plaintiff Bills did requested for “records”
…… Which the Magistrate denied.
(Id., PageID.1156.)
The objection does not explain, even in the broadest sense, why Bills believes
that the Magistrate Judge erred. Nor does the objection provide any basis to disturb
the Magistrate Judge’s resolution of Bills’ motion. Finally, the objection does not
specifically identify the documents Bills wants, does not provide any reason to
believe that those documents exist, and does not explain why Bills is legally entitled
to those documents (if they do exist).
For all of these reasons, Bills’ objection (ECF No. 111) to the Magistrate
Judge’s order denying his motion is OVERRULED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: August 3, 2021

2

Case 2:15-cv-11414-MFL-DRG ECF No. 113, PageID.1257 Filed 08/03/21 Page 3 of 3

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the
parties and/or counsel of record on August 3, 2021, by electronic means and/or
ordinary mail.
s/Holly A. Monda
Case Manager
[phone]

3