United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTION TO
COURT'S ORDER [DOC. # 38]
Victoria A. Roberts United States District Judge.
Anderson (“Anderson”) is a state prisoner
proceeding in forma pauperis. He filed a civil
rights lawsuit against Michigan State Police Troopers Colter
Furst, Michael Thomas, and Nathan Ellis (collectively,
“Defendants”). In his complaint, Anderson alleges
that Defendants violated his Fourth Amendment rights by using
excessive force during his arrest.
filed an objection [Doc. # 38] to Magistrate Judge Anthony
Patti's April 23, 2018 order denying as moot his motion
reasons that follow, Anderson's objection is DISMISSED.
February 26, 2018, Anderson filed a motion for an order
compelling discovery, seeking the production of several files
and documents. He claims that on January 16, 2018, he mailed
Defendants and the Court a written request for these
documents, but had yet to receive them. In their response to
Anderson's motion, Defendants say they never received the
request, and that his motion is moot because they mailed
appropriate responses after he filed his motion. Magistrate
Judge Patti ruled that Anderson did not follow the proper
procedures to obtain the requested records, and denied his
motion as moot since Defendants did respond to his request.
objection, Anderson says the Court erred because: 1) pursuant
to E.D. Mich. Local Rule 7.1(a)(2)(C), incarcerated pro
se parties need not seek concurrence; 2) the legal mail
disbursements attached as exhibits show that the Court and
Defendants were served with his discovery request; and 3) an
incomplete disclosure or answer must be treated as a failure
to disclose or answer, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 37.
reviewing a magistrate judge's order on a preliminary,
non-dispositive matter, a district court must modify or set
aside any part of the order that is “clearly erroneous
or contrary to law.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A);
Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a); United States v. Curtis, 237
F.3d 598, 602-03 (6th Cir. 2001). “The ‘clearly
erroneous' standard applies only to the magistrate
judge's factual findings; legal conclusions are reviewed
under the plenary ‘contrary to law'
standard.” Visteon Global Techs. v. Garmin
Int'l, Inc., 903 F.Supp.2d 521, 524-25 (E.D. Mich.
2012) (citations omitted). “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). If two or more permissible views of
the evidence exists, a magistrate judge's decision cannot
be “clearly erroneous.” Anderson v. City of
Bessemer City, N., 470 U.S. 564, 574 (1985). “A
legal conclusion is contrary to law when it fails to apply or
misapplies relevant statutes, case law, or rules of
procedure.” Robinson v. Allstate Ins. Co.,
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81316, at *6 (E.D. Mich. July 26, 2011)
(citation omitted). “The ‘contrary to law'
standard requires the Court to use independent judgment when
reviewing legal conclusions.” Id. (citation
does not show that Magistrate Judge Patti made any finding
that was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. First, while
Local Rule 7.1(a)(2)(C) implies that pro se
prisoners need not seek concurrence when filing motions, the
rule requires that the motion must state that concurrence was
not obtained because one of the parties is a pro se
prisoner. E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(a)(2)(C). Anderson's motion
did not state this. Second, although Anderson attaches to his
objection what he says is his first request for production,
mailed January 16, 2018, the Court and Defendants do not have
a record of this mailing. As Magistrate Judge Patti stated in
his order, Anderson's motion is his first recorded
discovery request. Further, this after-the-fact attachment
does not cure Anderson's failure to attach his discovery
request to his motion, as required by Local Rule 37. Anderson
did not follow the requisite procedures to obtain documents
from Defendants. His arguments fail.
Anderson does not refute Defendants' claim that they
mailed responses to his request. This leads the Court to
believe that these responses were indeed mailed, and that
Magistrate Judge Patti did not err in denying Anderson's
motion as moot.
fails to show that Magistrate Judge Patti's order is
clearly erroneous or contrary to ...