Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Santiago v. Walls

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS


January 17, 2005

FABIAN SANTIAGO, PLAINTIFF,
v.
JONATHON WALLS, ET AL., DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: J. Phil Gilbert District Judge

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff Fabian Santiago's ("Santiago") motion for reconsideration (Doc. 152), which the Court construes as an objection to Magistrate Judge Frazier's order of October 17, 2005 (Doc. 150), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). The defendants have not responded to the objection.

A district court reviewing a magistrate judge's decision on nondispositive issues should only modify or set aside that decision if it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). Accordingly, the Court will affirm Magistrate Judge Frazier's decision unless his factual findings are clearly erroneous or his legal conclusions are contrary to law. Id.

Santiago objects to Magistrate Judge Frazier's denying his motion for an order directing officials at Stateville Correctional Center to provide regular access to the prison law library so that Santiago can prepare for trial. He also objects to Magistrate Judge Frazier's denying his motion to strike a stipulation that does not exist.

The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Frazier's order and finds that it is not clearly erroneous or contracy to law. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Santiago's objections (Doc. 152) and AFFIRMS Magistrate Judge Frazier's October 17, 2005, order.

The Court has reviewed the matters at issue in this order and has determined that they involve aspects of the case that are ancillary to the discrete issue on Santiago's interlocutory appeal of the Court's denial of his motion for a preliminary injunction. See May v. Sheahan, 226 F.3d 876, 879 (7th Cir. 2000). Accordingly, the Court has jurisdiction to enter this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20050117

© 1992-2006 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.