Summary
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan overruled Casey H. Perry’s objections to a magistrate judge’s nondispositive order and affirmed that order. The magistrate judge had denied as moot a motion for protection of medical records and denied a request for incoming legal-mail records under the Stored Communications Act; the district court found no clear error or legal error.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the magistrate judge's resolution of Perry's nondispositive discovery motions was clearly erroneous or contrary to law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).
- Whether the magistrate judge properly denied Perry's request for incoming legal-mail records under the Stored Communications Act.
- Whether the magistrate judge properly denied Perry's protective-order motion as moot.
Holdings
- A district court must modify or set aside a portion of a magistrate judge's nondispositive order only if the order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
- The magistrate judge's order was neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law; Perry's objections were overruled and the order was affirmed.
Key quotations
“A finding is ‘clearly erroneous’ [if] the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.”
“Plaintiff’s objections merely re-raise arguments that were already presented to the magistrate judge and take issue with Judge Ivy’s characterization of the procedural history and the ongoing discovery disputes about Plaintiff’s medical records.”
Factual background
Casey H. Perry sued Ryan Silverthon, alleged to be a registered nurse at Macomb Correctional Facility acting at the direction of the Michigan Department of Corrections, for alleged deliberate indifference to Perry's serious medical needs. During discovery, Perry moved for protective orders concerning confidential medical records and separately sought a court order to obtain undisclosed information concerning incoming legal mail under the Stored Communications Act. The magistrate judge denied the protective-order request as moot and denied the legal-mail request because Perry identified no authority allowing the requested private use of the Act.
Procedural history
Perry filed suit in January 2024 and an amended complaint three months later, alleging deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Curtis Ivy, Jr. for full pretrial proceedings. Judge Ivy denied Perry's protective-order motion as moot and denied his request for incoming legal-mail records because Perry cited no authority permitting a private individual to use the Stored Communications Act in the requested manner. The district court reviewed Perry's objections and affirmed the January 5, 2026 nondispositive order.