United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
STEPHANIE DAWKINS DAVIS MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
OPINION AND ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS [51, 59, 72,
73] AND AFFIRMING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S ORDERS [47,
STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III United States District Judge.
state prisoner Robert Annabel filed a pro se civil rights
complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court referred the
case to Magistrate Judge Stephanie Dawkins Davis for all
pretrial proceedings, including determination of
non-dispositive matters. ECF 22. Magistrate Judge Davis
subsequently issued orders requiring Annabel to provide
correct addresses for three defendants; granting in part and
denying in part Annabel's motion to compel service, and
striking a motion to dismiss; denying Annabel's motion to
strike Defendants' reply brief; and denying Annabel's
motion to disqualify the judges from the case. ECF 47, 56,
70, 71. Annabel has lodged objections to each of these
orders. Having examined the record and reviewed the
magistrate judge's orders for clear error, the Court will
overrule the objections and affirm the orders.
Rule 72(a) governs a district judge's review of a
magistrate judge's order on a non-dispositive pretrial
matter. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).
The district judge must consider any objections to the order
timely filed within 14 days of its entry and may "modify
or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous
or is contrary to law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a). A 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." United States v. U.S. Gypsum
Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948).
initial matter, several of Annabel's objections violate
Rule 72(a), which-as the magistrate judge repeatedly
explained-required Annabel "to specify the part of the
Order to which [he] objects and state the basis of the
objection." ECF 47, PgID 350; ECF 56, PgID 407; ECF 70,
PgID 545; ECF 71, PgID 549. Accordingly, those objections are
summarily overruled. See ECF 51, PgID 372-73 (an
objection seeking an order compelling the Michigan Department
of Corrections (MDOC) to "stop being evasive"); ECF
59, PgID 488-90 (an objection claiming the MDOC habitually
withholds the first names of officers from prisoners prior to
process of service, and frequently fails to properly consult
reviewing the evidence and Annabel's remaining
objections, the Court is not left with the definite and firm
conviction that the magistrate judge committed any mistakes.
Those objections will also be overruled.
Order to Provide Correct Address 
Annabel claims that the magistrate judge's order
requiring him to provide correct addresses for several of the
Defendants is an "unreasonably oppressive
procedure." ECF 51, PgID 371-72. The Court disagrees.
While the Court bears "the responsibility for issuing
the plaintiff's process to a United States Marshal, who
must effectuate service upon the defendants once the
plaintiff has properly identified them in the complaint,
" it is the plaintiff's responsibility to
"specifically identify each defendant against whom
relief is sought, and must give each defendant notice of the
action by serving upon him or her a summons and copy of the
complaint." Wendt v. Hutchinson, No. 4:08 CV
12485, 2008 WL 4280117, at *3 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 11, 2008).
This burden is not an "unreasonably oppressive
procedure"-it is a basic obligation that accompanies the
filing of a civil complaint. The magistrate judge did not
clearly err in ordering Annabel to fulfill his obligation to
provide addresses of the defendants.
Annabel argues that the U.S. Marshal made no serious attempts
to locate Defendant Jorg Erichsen. ECF 51, PgID 372. This
objection is speculative and unsubstantiated. Without any
evidence of bad faith by the U.S. Marshals, and to the extent
Annabel objects to the magistrate judge's order for the
Marshals to effectuate service, the Court does not find that
the magistrate judge made a mistake.
Order Denying Motion to Strike 
objects to the order on the ground that he "proved by
clear evidence that Defendants' motion was both frivolous
but also perjurious with obviously false documents." ECF
72. The Court disagrees. The magistrate judge properly
reasoned that Annabel's arguments "will necessarily
be considered by the court on the MDOC defendants'
pending motion for summary judgment which raises the issue of
exhaustion." ECF 70, PgID 544. Her decision was neither
erroneous nor contrary to law.
Order Denying Motion to ...