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, S.D. Illinois


June 8, 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") 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 his dispute.

  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 order.

  IT IS SO ORDERED.

20050608

© 1992-2005 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.