Baytops v. Slominski et al
ORDER Overruling Plaintiff's 85 Objections to Magistrate Judge's Order Denying Motions to Appoint Counsel. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HRya)
Case 4:20-cv-11630-MFL-APP ECF No. 86, PageID.978 Filed 05/22/23 Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Case No. 20-cv-11630
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman
STEVE SLOMINSKI, et al.,
ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS
TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S ORDER DENYING
MOTIONS TO APPOINT COUNSEL (ECF No. 85)
Over the course of this civil litigation, Plaintiff Milton Baytops has filed five
motions asking the Court to appoint counsel to represent him. (See Mots., ECF Nos. 52,
54, 75, 80, 81.) On June 29, 2022, Magistrate Judge Patti entered an Order denying the
first two of these motions. (See Order, ECF No. 56.) Since that order, Baytops has filed
three additional motions requesting that the Court appoint him counsel. On April 27,
2023, Magistrate Judge Patti entered an order denying Plaintiff’s three pending motions
for the Court to appoint counsel (ECF Nos. 75, 80, 81). Baytops has now filed
Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s order. (See Obj., ECF No. 85.)
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), a magistrate judge has the authority “to hear
and determine [certain] pretrial matter[s] pending before the court.” Parties may object
to such orders within fourteen days. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a). Upon receiving objections
Case 4:20-cv-11630-MFL-APP ECF No. 86, PageID.979 Filed 05/22/23 Page 2 of 3
to a non-dispositive order, the Court may reverse the order “only if it is ‘clearly
erroneous or contrary to law.’ ” Massey v. City of Ferndale, 7 F.3d 506, 509 (6th Cir.
1993) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a)). “This standard requires [the Court] to review
findings of fact for clear error and to review matters of law de novo.” Bisig v. Time
Warner Cable, Inc., 940 F.3d 205, 219 (6th Cir. 2019). “A [factual] finding is ‘clearly
erroneous’ when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the
entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been
committed.” Id. Finally, “[a]n order is ‘contrary to the law’ when it ‘fails to apply or
misapplies relevant statutes, case law, or rules of procedure.’ ” Id.
After carefully reviewing Baytops’ Objections, the Court concludes that the
Objections do no more than re-state the arguments that Baytops has already presented
in his several motions. He has not shown any error in Magistrate Judge Patti’s ruling.
Therefore, Baytops’ Objections (ECF No. 85) are OVERRULED. His three pending
motions for appointment of counsel (ECF Nos. 75, 80, 81) are DENIED. The Court
shares Magistrate Judge Patti’s view that, if Attorney Frank J. Lawrence is willing to
represent Baytops, Baytops is free to hire Mr. Lawrence (or any other attorney of his
choosing). The Court need not be involved in that process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: May 22, 2023
Case 4:20-cv-11630-MFL-APP ECF No. 86, PageID.980 Filed 05/22/23 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 May 22, 2023, by electronic means and/or ordinary mail.
s/Holly A. Ryan
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?