Baytops v. Slominski

• Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan
• Decided: May 22, 2023
• Docket: 4:20-cv-11630
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION MILTON BAYTOPS,

Plaintiff, Case No. 20-cv-11630 v. Hon. Matthew F. Leitman

STEVE SLOMINSKI, et al.,

Defendants. ____________________________________________________________________/ ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO APPOINT COUNSEL (ECF No. 85) Over the course of this civil litigation, Plaintiff Milton Baytops has filed five motions asking the Court to appoint counsel to represent him. (See Mots., ECF Nos. 52, 54, 75, 80, 81.) On June 29, 2022, Magistrate Judge Patti entered an Order denying the first two of these motions. (See Order, ECF No. 56.) Since that order, Baytops has filed three additional motions requesting that the Court appoint him counsel. On April 27, 2023, Magistrate Judge Patti entered an order denying Plaintiff’s three pending motions for the Court to appoint counsel (ECF Nos. 75, 80, 81). Baytops has now filed Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s order. (See Obj., ECF No. 85.) Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), a magistrate judge has the authority “to hear and determine [certain] pretrial matter[s] pending before the court.” Parties may object to such orders within fourteen days. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a). Upon receiving objections to a non-dispositive order, the Court may reverse the order “only if it is ‘clearly erroneous or contrary to law.’ ” Massey v. City of Ferndale, 7 F.3d 506, 509 (6th Cir.

1993) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a)). “This standard requires [the Court] to review findings of fact for clear error and to review matters of law de novo.” Bisig v. Time Warner Cable, Inc., 940 F.3d 205, 219 (6th Cir. 2019). “A [factual] finding is ‘clearly erroneous’ when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the

entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Id. Finally, “[a]n order is ‘contrary to the law’ when it ‘fails to apply or misapplies relevant statutes, case law, or rules of procedure.’ ” Id. After carefully reviewing Baytops’ Objections, the Court concludes that the

Objections do no more than re-state the arguments that Baytops has already presented in his several motions. He has not shown any error in Magistrate Judge Patti’s ruling. Therefore, Baytops’ Objections (ECF No. 85) are OVERRULED. His three pending motions for appointment of counsel (ECF Nos. 75, 80, 81) are DENIED. The Court shares Magistrate Judge Patti’s view that, if Attorney Frank J. Lawrence is willing to

represent Baytops, Baytops is free to hire Mr. Lawrence (or any other attorney of his choosing). The Court need not be involved in that process. IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Matthew F. Leitman MATTHEW F. LEITMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: May 22, 2023 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or counsel of record on May 22, 2023, by electronic means and/or ordinary mail.

s/Holly A. Ryan Case Manager (313) 234-5126