The opinion of the court was delivered by: Murphy, Chief District Judge
Currently pending before the Court are two documents containing three motions. First, Plaintiff seeks leave to file an interlocutory appeal (Doc. 19). Plaintiff has also filed a list of objections to the Court's order referring his case to a magistrate judge (Doc. 22), which contains a motion for reconsideration of the order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and a motion to amend the complaint.
LEAVE TO FILE AN INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL (DOC.19)
On July 14, 2006, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied Plaintiff's request in that Court to proceed with an interlocutory appeal. Accordingly, this Court also denies the request to proceed with an interlocutory appeal. As such, this motion (Doc. 19) is DENIED.
OBJECTIONS TO THE COURT'S ORDER AND MOTION TO RECONSIDER (DOC.22)
In his motion, Plaintiff lists the following ten objections to the Court's order referring the case to a magistrate judge (Doc. 16).
Ground 1: Plaintiff objects to the Court's order that he submit USM-285 forms for Defendants because he had already sent them.
Ground 2: Plaintiff objects to the Court's dismissal of Counts 3, 4, and 5 "with prejudice." Plaintiff argues that each of the Counts should have been dismissed without prejudice so that he might amend his complaint to conform to the law.
Ground 3: Plaintiff objects to the Court's language in the order in that it sent a "signal" to the magistrate judge as to how to rule in the case.
Ground 4: Plaintiff objects to the Court's statement that Plaintiff wrote a letter to Defendant Cuthins.
Ground 5: Plaintiff objects to the Court's dismissal of a due process claim under Count 3 and to the Court's interpretation of Count 5.
Ground 6: Plaintiff objects to the Court's accusing Plaintiff of a crime.
Ground 7: Plaintiff objects to the Court's statement that Plaintiff willfully refused to provide information to the Court.
Ground 8: Plaintiff objects to the Court's dismissal of Count 4 of the complaint.
Ground 9: Plaintiff objects to the length of time it took to receive the Court's order.
Ground 10: Plaintiff objects to the Court's dismissal of Count 5 with prejudice and argues that he should be allowed to amend his complaint to state a retaliation claim.
The Court construes these ten objections as Plaintiff's grounds for reconsideration and considers each one in turn. Pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a motion to alter or amend judgment may only be granted if the movant shows there was mistake of law or fact or presents newly discovered evidence that could not have been discovered previously. Matter of Prince, 85 F.3d 314 (7th Cir. 1996); Deutsch v. Burlington Northern R. Co., 983 F.2d 741 (7th Cir. 1993).*fn1
Plaintiff states that the Court ordered him to submit USM-285 forms for Defendants, but that the Clerk of Court sent him a letter stating that "the forms were received when the case was filed." A minor clerical error is not the type of mistake of law or fact contemplated by Rule 59(e). Furthermore, Plaintiff requests no relief under this ground and appears to bring this objection merely to point out the Court's clerical error. The error is so noted. Because the Clerk is in possession of ...