The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sue E. Myerscough, U.S. District Judge.
E-FILED Wednesday, 23 November, 2011 10:55:20 AM Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
This cause is before the Court on (1) Plaintiff Sharon Murray's objections (d/e 182) to certain portions of the order entered by United States Magistrate Judge Byron G. Cudmore on October 31, 2011 (see d/e 181) and (2) Defendants Nationwide Better Health (NBH), Barbara Ley, and Cynthia Northrup's objections (d/e 183) to certain portions of the same order. Because Judge Cudmore's determinations were neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law, the objections (d/e 182, d/e 183) are OVERRULED. Defendants shall file a response to Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint and Joinder of Parties (d/e 158) on or before December 7, 2011.
On October 31, 2011, Judge Cudmore entered an Opinion resolving numerous pending motions. As is relevant herein, Judge Cudmore made the following rulings.
First, Judge Cudmore denied Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (d/e 153). Judge Cudmore found that the motion was moot to the extent it related to issues resolved by an earlier Opinion (d/e 150). Judge Cudmore further found that Plaintiff did not provide sufficient information to allow the Court to address the request.
Second, Judge Cudmore rejected Defendants argument that this Court had stayed Plaintiff's ability to seek leave to amend her complaint until after a ruling on Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Judge Cudmore granted Defendants until November 18, 2011 to file a response to Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint and Joinder of Parties (d/e 158).
Third, Judge Cudmore denied Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions against Defendant NBH (d/e 168) for failing to follow an order entered on October 15, 2008 in Case No. 08-CV-3159. Judge Cudmore found that Plaintiff made no showing that NBH--a nonparty to Case No. 08-CF-3159-- was bound by that order.
Fourth, Judge Cudmore denied Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for Court Appointed Counsel (d/e 170). Judge Cudmore found Plaintiff had demonstrated she was capable for advocating her positions before the Court and was not entitled to the appointment of counsel.
Plaintiff has filed objections to Judge Cudmore's Opinion regarding the Motion to Compel (d/e 153), the Motion for Sanctions (d/e 168), and the Renewed Motion for Court Appointed Counsel (d/e 170). Defendants have filed objections to Judge Cudmore's Opinion regarding Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint and Joinder of Parties (d/e 158).
A magistrate judge may hear and determine matters that are not dispositive of a claim or defense. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). Routine discovery matters are generally considered nondispositive. Westefer v. Snyder, 472 F. Supp. 2d 1034, 1036 (S.D.Ill. 2006); see also MacNeil Automotive Products, Ltd. v. Cannon Automotive Ltd., 2011 WL 812140, at *2 (N.D. Ill. 2011) (order by magistrate judge that does not impose discovery sanctions is a nondispositive order). Rulings on motions for the appointment of counsel are also nondispositive motions. McNary v. Norman, 134 F.3d 374, at *3 (7th Cir. 1998) (nonpublished disposition). When a district court considers objections to a magistrate judge's ruling on a nondispositive matter, the magistrate judge's disposition will be set aside only if it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).
A. Plaintiff's Objections ...