United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
Magistrate Judge, David R. Grand
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S ORDER DENYING
REQUEST FOR ORDER BY “INTERESTED PARTY” (DOC.
F. COX, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
and Michigan state prisoners, Mary Ann McBride, Brian Stanley
Wittman, and Ralph Williams (collectively
“Plaintiffs”), filed this civil rights class
action against multiple defendants, claiming that they have
been discriminated against for being deaf or significantly
hearing impaired. This Court has since referred all pretrial
matters to Magistrate Judge David R. Grand pursuant to 28
U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(A) and (b)(1)(B). (Doc. #17).
August 1, 2016, Edward Donald Burley filed a “Notice of
Interested Party.” (Doc. #53). In it, Burley advised
that he is “an incarcerated person currently under the
jurisdiction of the MDOC [the Michigan Department of
Corrections], a hearing disabled prisoner without proper
accommodations for [his] disability.” (Id. at
1). Burley further advised that he “currently [has]
pending before this very [C]ourt litigation entitled
Burley v. MDOC, et al[.], Case No. 2:16-cv-10712,
Hon. Judge Steeh presiding over the action.”
Notice sought two things. First, he requested that the Court
“officially take notice that [he] is an interested
party in this civil litigation against the MDOC.”
(Id. at 2). Second, he sought an order from the
Court “directing the clerk to furnish [him] the entire
court file, service of any and all further pleadings,
motions, judgments, or other forms of legal filings within
this Court relating to the McBride case.” (Id.
at 2). Burley sought this information because the
“evidence [already] discovered in this case may assist
the Court in its judicial economy and prompt resolution of
the issues” before the Court in Burley's case.
(Id. at 1-2). No response to Burley's Notice was
August 22, 2016, Magistrate Judge Grand entered an
“Order Denying Request for Order by ‘Interested
Party.'” (Doc. #54, MJ Order). Burley timely
objected to the Magistrate Judge's Order on September 6,
2016. (Doc. #55, Burley's Objs.). The parties in this
case have not responded to Burley's objection and the
time to do so has passed.
extent that any of Burley's objections actually
constitute proper objections, the Court finds them to be
without merit. The Court therefore ADOPTS Magistrate Judge
Grand's “Order Denying Request for Order by
‘Interested Party.'” (Doc. #54).
Order at issue here addresses non-dispositive, pretrial
matters and is therefore governed by Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 72(a). Pursuant to Rule 72(a), an objecting party
must file objections to the Magistrate Judge's written
order within fourteen (14) days after being served with a
copy of the order. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a). Objections must
“(A) specify the part of the order, proposed findings,
recommendations, or report to which a person objects; and (B)
state the basis for the objection.” E.D. Mich. LR
are not “a second opportunity to present the argument
already considered by the Magistrate Judge.”
Betancourt v. Ace Ins. Co. of Puerto Rico, 313
F.Supp.2d 32, 34 (D.P.R. 2004). Moreover, the district court
should not consider arguments that have not first been
presented to the Magistrate Judge. See Stonecrest
Partners, LLC v. Bank of Hampton Roads, 770 F.Supp.2d
778, 785 (E.D. N.C. 2011).
Magistrate Judge's resolution of a non-dispositive
pretrial matter should be modified or set aside on review by
the district court only if it is clearly erroneous or
contrary to law.” Colvin v. Martin, 2011 WL
318835, at *1 (W.D. Mich. Jan. 28, 2011) (citing Fed.R.Civ.P.
Burley argues that Magistrate Judge Grand “only
adjudicated ruling on the relief, and not the actual request
for the court to take judicial notice that Edward Donald
Burley is an interested party.” (Burley's Objs. at
Pg ID 980). Burley misapprehends the Magistrate Judge's
Order. Magistrate Judge Grand did not “ignore”
Burley's request to be deemed an “interested
party.” The Order acknowledges the relief requested and
essentially declines to take judicial notice of it.
Burley's first objection has therefore failed to point to
any specific deficiency in the Magistrate Judge's
reasoning as to this point. Additionally, the Court finds
that Magistrate Judge Grand's resolution of this issue
was neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law.
Burley's first objection is overruled.
Burley takes issue with Magistrate Judge Grand's use of
the word “says.” (Burley's Objs. at Pg ID
981). Specifically, when summarizing the facts outlined in
Burley's Notice, the Magistrate Judge's Order notes
that: “Burley says that he ‘currently [has]
pending before this very [C]ourt litigation entitled Burley
v. MDOC ...'” (MJ Order at 2). According to Burley,
Magistrate Judge Grand's use of the word
“says” “call[s] into question the validity
of interested party Burley's contentions.”
(Burley's Objs. at Pg ID 981). Again, Burley
misapprehends the Magistrate Judge's Order. Magistrate
Judge Grand does not question that ...