Malone v. Corrections Corporation of America et al

Filing 62

ORDER: Although the plaintiff attached certain documents to his objection, he has not apprised this court of the basis of his appeal. Moreover, the magistrate judges ruling, based on the scheduling order entered in the case on August 6, 2014, was not clearly erroneous or is contrary to law. The plaintiff's objection is therefore OVERRULED, and the court DECLINES to modify or set aside any part of that order (ECF No. 55 ). It is so ORDERED. Signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 2/2/15.(xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(afs)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION

AARON MALONE,
Plaintiff,
v.
CORRECTIONAL CORPORATION OF
AMERICA, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 3:13-cv-1212
Judge Trauger

ORDER
Plaintiff Aaron Malone, a state prisoner confined at the Northeast Correctional Complex in
Mountain City, Tennessee, pursues this pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. After this court’s initial
review, the matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Juliet Griffin for management of the case, decisions
on all pretrial, non-dispositive motions, and entry of recommendations as to the disposition of any
dispositive motions, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 626(b)(1)(A) and (b) and Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.
Now before the court is the plaintiff’s “Notice of Appeal” (ECF No. 61). The court construes the
notice as the plaintiff’s objection, under Rule 72(a), to the magistrate judge’s order (ECF No. 55) denying
the plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 48).
Pursuant to the applicable rule, when a magistrate judge has issued a ruling on a pretrial matter
that is not dispositive of a party’s claim or defense, any party may “serve and file objections to the order
within 14 days after being served with a copy. . . . The district judge in the case must consider timely
objections and modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). See also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) (“A judge of the court may reconsider any pretrial
matter under this subparagraph (A) where it has been shown that the magistrate judge's order is clearly
erroneous or contrary to law.”). “‘A finding [of fact] 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.’” Adams County Reg’l Water Dist. v. Vill. of Manchester, 226 F.3d 513, 517
(6th Cir. 2000) (quoting United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)).

2

In his motion to compel (ECF No. 48), filed on December 22, 2014, the plaintiff sought to compel
more complete answers to his first set of interrogatories, as well as answers to new interrogatory
questions. A copy of the plaintiff’s first set of interrogatories, dated September 8, 2014, is attached to the
motion. (Id. at 4–7.) The defendant’s answers to the interrogatories were not included with the motion, but
the plaintiff instead attached his specific objections to the defendants’ answers. (ECF No. 48, at 8–10.)
Defendant CCA opposed the motion to compel on the grounds that (1) it was filed almost two
months past the deadline in the scheduling order for filing discovery-related motions and twelve days after
the court denied the plaintiff’s motion for additional time to conduct discovery; (2) the plaintiff failed to
comply with Local Rule 37.01(b)(2); and (3) CCA had fully cooperated with the plaintiff and fully
responded to his discovery requests. (ECF No. 51.)
Magistrate Judge Griffin denied the motion on the first ground asserted by the defendant: that it
was filed almost two months after the November 3, 2014 deadline for filing discovery motions and for
completion of discovery and the court had already denied the plaintiff’s motion for enlargement of the time
for conducting discovery. In her order, Magistrate Judge Griffin also notified the plaintiff of his right to
appeal the order to this court and instructed him that “the motion for review must be accompanied by a
brief or other pertinent documents to apprise the District Judge of the basis for appeal.” (ECF No. 55, at
1.)
Although the plaintiff attached certain documents to his objection, he has not apprised this court
of the basis of his appeal. Moreover, the magistrate judge’s ruling, based on the scheduling order entered
in the case on August 6, 2014, was not clearly erroneous or is contrary to law. The plaintiff’s objection is
therefore OVERRULED, and the court DECLINES to modify or set aside any part of that order (ECF No.
55).
It is so ORDERED.

Aleta A. Trauger
United States District Judge