Name of Assigned Judge Sitting Judge if Other or Magistrate Judge Blanche M. Manning than Assigned Judge
Plaintiff Michael Day's objections to various rulings of the assigned magistrate judge  are overruled. Consistent with this court's April 23, 2012, order, the defendants may file a dispositive motion without obtaining further permission from this court. Any such motion shall be filed by October 2, 2012. The response shall be filed by November 2, 2012. The reply shall be filed by November 16, 2012. The ruling shall be by mail unless the parties are otherwise notified.
O [ For further details see text below.] Docketing to mail notices.
On April 6, 2012, Magistrate Judge Cox entered an order finding that all matters relating to the referral of this case had been resolved. Thirteen days later on April 19, plaintiff Michael Day filed a motion asking this court to re-refer the case to the assigned magistrate judge for additional discovery or, in the alternative, an extension of time to file objections to various rulings on discovery matters made by the magistrate judge. The court denied the motion without prejudice because Mr. Day had failed to identify the specific rulings that would be the subject of his objections, and because any objections would appear to be untimely and Mr. Day had not explained why he had failed to object any earlier. The court gave Mr. Day until May 4, 2012, to renew his motion containing the additional detail requested.
On May 8, 2012, Mr. Day filed a document entitled "Plaintiff Objections to Magistrate Findings and Recommendation and Reasons Why Such Are Timely." In it, he identifies the specific rulings by the magistrate judge to which he seeks to object. They are as follows:
1. The December 8, 2011, order denying his request to extend the January 23, 2012, discovery deadline;
2. The January 12, 2012, order limiting him to serving an additional 10 interrogatories on the defendants;
3. The February 14, 2012, order in which Mr. Day contends that the magistrate judge held that the defendants had complied with Mr. Day's requests for documents; and
4. The April 6, 2012, order terminating the referral to the magistrate judge.
Mr. Day also asks this court to reconsider its own February 13, 2012, order in which it denied his objection to the magistrate judge's February 8, 2012, order limiting the time period for which he could obtain records from the school district to the 2008-09 and 2009-10 school years.
Orders on routine discovery issues are considered to be nondispositive under Rule 72(a) and, therefore, 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); see also Hall v. Norfolk Southern Ry. Co., 469 F.3d 590, 595 (7th Cir. 2006). "Ordinarily, under clearly erroneous review, if there are two permissible views, the reviewing court should not overturn the decision solely because it would have chosen the other view." American Motors Corp. v. Great Am. Surplus Lines Ins. Co., No. 87 CV 2496, 1988 WL 2788, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 8, 1988). Rather, "the district court can overturn the magistrate judge's ruling only if the district court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made." Weeks v. Samsung Heavy Industries Co., Ltd., 126 F.3d 926, ...