United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
June 8, 2005.
FABIAN SANTIAGO, Plaintiff,
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") objection to Magistrate Judge Frazier's
order of August 20, 2004 (Doc. 86), pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). Defendants Jonathan Walls, C/O Keys, C/O Coxs and
Stephen Jines have responded to the objection (Doc. 95).
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 without
prejudice his motion to compel discovery on the grounds that it
was premature. Magistrate Judge Frazier reasoned that Santiago
did not make a good faith effort to resolve his discovery dispute
with the defendants before filing the motion.
The procedures required by Magistrate Judge Frazier are not
contrary to law. They are, in fact, perfectly consistent with
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(2)(A), which requires that
before a party file a motion to compel he must attempt "to confer
in good faith with the party not making the disclosure in an effort to secure the
disclosure without court action" and so certify within the
motion. Neither was Magistrate Judge Frazier's fact-finding
clearly erroneous; there is no certification in Santiago's motion
to compel that he made the required good faith attempt to resolve
Because Magistrate Judge Frazier's August 20, 2004, order was
not clearly erroneous or contrary to law, the Court DENIES
Santiago's objections (Doc. 90) and AFFIRMS Magistrate Judge
Frazier's order denying without prejudice Santiago's motion to
compel (Doc. 86).
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
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2005 VersusLaw Inc.