Lee v. Fairview Health Services et al

Filing 34

ORDER overruling 31 ORDER RE: APPEAL/OBJECTION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION to District Judge (Written Opinion) Signed by Senior Judge David S. Doty on 8/22/2017. (DLO) cc: Claire Jean Lee. Modified on 8/22/2017 (lmb).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Civil No. 17-105(DSD/SER)
Claire Jean Lee,
Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

Fairview Health Services and
Fairview Southdale Hospital,
Defendants.

This matter is before the court upon plaintiff Claire Jean
Lee’s objection to the July 13, 2017, orders of Magistrate Judge
Steven E. Rau.

In the first order, the magistrate judge required

that all communication between the parties and the court be in
writing and forbade either party from telephoning or emailing his
chambers or the clerk’s office.

See ECF No. 19.

In the second

order, the magistrate judge ordered Lee to provide an amended
complaint to the United States Marshal within twenty-one days so
that the marshal could properly serve defendants.

See ECF No. 20.

The standard of review applicable to an appeal of a magistrate
judge’s order on nondispositive matters is “extremely deferential.”
Reko v. Creative Promotions, Inc., 70 F. Supp. 2d 1005, 1007 (D.
Minn. 1999).

The court will reverse such an order only if it is

clearly erroneous or contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); D.
Minn. LR 72.2(a)(3).

After a thorough review of the file and

record, the court finds that the orders are neither clearly
erroneous nor contrary to law.

Lee objects to the magistrate judge’s first order, claiming
she is prejudiced by being prohibited from contacting chambers or
the Clerk’s office by telephone or email. Although Lee may find it
more convenient to email or call chambers or the clerk’s office,
she is still able to fully litigate her claims by submitting
motions and letters on the electronic filing system or via mail.
Furthermore, the local rules give a judge broad authority to
implement pre-trial procedures that are consistent with the local
rules and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
16.1(a).

D. Minn. LR

The magistrate judge’s order falls within his broad

authority to control pre-trial procedures.1
Next, Lee objects to the second order, arguing additional
service is unnecessary because she already served defendants with
the original complaint.

But the Federal Rules require that the

plaintiff also serve defendants with the amended complaint.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(3).

See

In any case, Lee has complied with the

magistrate judge’s order and, therefore, the objection is moot.2

1

Lee also objects to the magistrate judge’s characterization
of her interactions with the clerk’s office and chambers staff as
“rude and abusive.” ECF No. 19. Although she may disagree with
this characterization, it is not an order which is subject to
appeal because it does not relate to the viability of any claim or
defense.
See D. Minn. LR 72.2(a) (“When a pretrial matter not
dispositive of a party’s claim or defense is referred to and
decided by a magistrate judge, a party may seek review of the
magistrate judge’s order ....”).
2

The court notes that the U.S. Marshal was not able to serve
defendants at the address provided by Lee. The docket indicates,
however, that her amended complaint, summons, and recently
2

See ECF Nos. 22, 25.

As a result, the magistrate judge’s orders

were neither contrary to the law or clearly erroneous.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s objection
[ECF No. 31] is overruled.

Dated: August 22, 2017
s/David S. Doty
David S. Doty, Judge
United States District Court

submitted “directions for service of process” have been submitted
to the U.S. Marshal for a second attempt.
3