King v. Hamlin, No. 2:2020cv12886 - Document 41 (E.D. Mich. 2022)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER Overruling 40 Objection filed by Kevin King re 39 Order on Motion to Compel. Signed by District Judge Sean F. Cox. (JMcC)

Download PDF
King v. Hamlin Doc. 41 Case 2:20-cv-12886-SFC-JJCG ECF No. 41, PageID.433 Filed 11/02/22 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION KEVIN KING, Plaintiffs, v. Case No.: 2:20-cv-12886 HONORABLE SEAN F. COX United States District Judge M. HAMLIN, Defendant. ___________________________________/ OPINION & ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE GREY’S JULY 28, 2022 ORDER [ECF No. 39] Plaintiff Kevin King (“King”) brought this action against Defendant M. Hamlin (“Hamlin” under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter currently before the Court is King’s Objections to Magistrate Judge Grey’s July 28, 2022, Order denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel. (ECF No. 31). In that motion, King contests Magistrate Judge Grey’s findings in his July 28, 2022, “Order on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel.” (ECF No. 39). The parties have fully briefed the issues. For the following reasons, the Court OVERRULES King’s objections. In the July 28, 2022, Order, Magistrate Judge Grey held that: (1) As to the first motion to compel, King’s requests for Hamlin’s personnel file and other requests must be denied because “Hamlin has no access to her MDOC personnel file, [and] she cannot produce the information. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1).” (ECF No. 39 at 420). (2) As to his second motion to compel, King’s request for “ANY AND ALL email communications sent to” Mrs. Kim Napier and Carey Johnson “concerning [King]” [ECF No. 32 PageID. 193–194) must be denied because Hamlin “has no access to her previous Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:20-cv-12886-SFC-JJCG ECF No. 41, PageID.434 Filed 11/02/22 Page 2 of 2 emails and has never had access to other staff’s emails, [so] she cannot produce the information. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1).” (ECF No. 39 at 421). Pursuant to Fed. Civ. P. R. 72(a) “[t]he district judge in the case must consider timely objections and modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” This Court sees no such error or evidence that any part of the Magistrate Judge’s decision was contrary to law. As the Court agrees with the well-reasoned order of Magistrate Judge Grey dated July 28, 2022, [ECF No. 39] King’s objections are OVERRULED. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Sean F. Cox Sean F. Cox United States District Court Judge Dated: November 2, 2022

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.