Watson v. Jamsen et al

Filing 60

OPINION and ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Objections to Magistrate Judge's Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion to Compel. Signed by District Judge Linda V. Parker. (RLou)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DERRYL WATSON,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 16-cv-13770
Honorable Linda V. Parker

v.
CHARLES JAMSEN, et al.,
Defendants.
________________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS TO
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO COMPEL (ECF No. 52)
On October 21, 2016, Plaintiff filed this pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C. §
1983, alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical condition in violation
of the Eighth Amendment. (ECF No. 1.) This matter was referred to Magistrate
Judge R. Steven Whalen for all pretrial proceedings, including a hearing and
determination of all non-dispositive matters pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A)
and/or a report and recommendation (“R&R”) on all dispositive matters pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). (ECF No. 5.)
On December 7, 2017, Magistrate Judge Whalen issued an Order granting
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel. (ECF No. 49.) Plaintiff objects to Magistrate Judge
Whalen’s ruling because he is required to pay for copies of the documents he

requests. A party may object to a magistrate judge’s non-dispositive orders. Fed.
R. Civ. P. 72(a); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). The reviewing court must affirm the
magistrate judge’s ruling unless the objecting party demonstrates that the
magistrate judge’s ruling is “clearly erroneous” or “contrary to law.” Id. The
“clearly erroneous” standard does not empower a reviewing court to reverse a
magistrate judge’s finding because it would have decided the matter differently.
See, e.g., Anderson v. Bessemer City, N.C., 470 U.S. 564, 573-74 (1985). Instead,
the “clearly erroneous” standard is met when despite the existence of evidence to
support the finding, the court, upon reviewing the record in its entirety, “is left with
the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States
v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 33 U.S. 364, 395 (1948). An order is contrary to law “when it
fails to apply or misapplies relevant statutes, case law, or rules of procedure.”
Catskill Dev., L.L.C. v. Park Place Entm't Corp., 206 F.R.D. 78, 86 (S.D.N.Y.
2002).
The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s objections to the December 7, 2017
Order and is not convinced that Magistrate Judge Whalen’s ruling is clearly
erroneous or contrary to law. Although Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis,
as Magistrate Judge Whalen correctly ruled, Plaintiff is not entitled to free copies
of discovery. As to Plaintiff’s objection regarding his right to inspect the

2

documents, this objection is moot because Judge Whalen granted Plaintiff’s
request on January 30, 2018. (ECF No. 58.)
Further, Plaintiff’s objections filed on December 19, 2017 based on Judge
Whalen’s failure to resolve docket numbers “33, 35, and 36”1 are denied, as moot,
because those motions have since been resolved.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Objection to Magistrate Judge Whalen’s
December 7, 2017 Order (ECF No. 52) is DENIED; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDER that Plaintiff’s Objection (ECF No. 51) is
DENIED, as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Linda V. Parker
LINDA V. PARKER
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: April 25, 2018
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of
record and/or pro se parties on this date, April 25, 2018, by electronic and/or U.S.
First Class mail.
s/ R. Loury
Case Manager

1

Docket number 36 is Plaintiff’s response to MDOC’s Motion to Quash.
3