United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
Steven Whalen, U.S. Magistrate Judge.
OVERRULING IN PART AND SUSTAINING IN PART
PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS [117, 118, 133]
TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S ORDERS [105, 106, 108,
126]; REQUIRING THAT PLAINTIFF BE PROVIDED WITH A
COPY OF HIS DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT; AND
PROVISIONALLY GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL 
J. Tarnow, Senior U.S. District Judge.
Robert Annabel has filed several objections to the Magistrate
Judge's orders. For the reasons stated below, the Court
OVERRULES in part and SUSTAINS in part
Plaintiff's objections. Furthermore, the Court orders
that Plaintiff be provided with a copy of his deposition
transcript. Finally, the Court provisionally
GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint
filed a Motion for Appointment of Counsel  on January 31,
2017. Defendants filed a Motion for Leave to Take the
Deposition of the Plaintiff  on February 7, 2017.
Plaintiff filed a Motion to Strike Defendants' Motion for
Leave to Depose  on February 22, 2017.
25, 2017, the Magistrate Judge denied Plaintiff's Motion
for Appointment of Counsel  and granted Defendants'
Motion for Leave to Take Deposition of Plaintiff . On
July 30, 2017, the Magistrate Judge denied Plaintiff's
Motion to Strike .
August 8, 2017, Plaintiff filed objections [117, 118] to
orders [105, 106, 108].
filed a Motion for Recusal of Magistrate Judge  on
August 15, 2017. On September 13, 2017, the Magistrate Judge
denied Plaintiff's Motion for Recusal . Plaintiff
filed Objections  to the Order on September 28, 2017.
October 3, 2017, the Sixth Circuit held that it does not have
jurisdiction over appeal Nos. 17-1927 and 17-1928 (the
objections raised in Appeal of Magistrate Judge Decision
[117, 118]). Annabel v. Frost, No. 15-1518, (6th
Cir. Oct. 3, 2017).
litigant objects to a magistrate judge's ruling on a
non-dispositive pretrial matter, the court 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). The
“clearly erroneous” standard does not permit a
district court to reverse the magistrate judge's finding
simply because it would have decided the issue differently.
Anderson v. City of Bessemer, ___N.C. ___, 470 U.S.
564, 573 (1985). Rather, 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).
Plaintiff's Objections to Discovery Orders
their Motion to Take Deposition , Defendants argued that
they are entitled to take Plaintiff's deposition because
Plaintiff alleged that Defendants retaliated against them in
violation of the First Amendment.
response, Plaintiff argued that Defendants are not entitled
to take his deposition and that the Motion was “Mr.
Thurber's latest act to relentlessly harass
Plaintiff.” [Dkt. #85 at 1]. Should the Court decide to
order the deposition, Plaintiff requested to: have the
deposition supervised on live video “so that a federal
judge can restrain harassing or unfair tactics, and also rule
immediately upon Plaintiff's objections;” be
permitted to “depose all five defendants;” and
receive a deposition transcript. Id. at 2-3.
Magistrate Judge granted Defendants' Motion and denied
Plaintiff's Motion. [Dkt. #106; #108]. The Magistrate
Judge explained that “any defendant, including these
Defendants, get to depose a plaintiff.” [Dkt. #108].
The Magistrate Judge further explained that “[b]ecause
Plaintiff is incarcerated, leave of the court is required to
take his deposition” under Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(a)(2).
aforementioned orders, the Magistrate Judge did not rule on