UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

ANGEL PETERSON, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 14-cv-13000 

v Honorable Thomas L. Ludington 

ROCKY BURRIS, et al., Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford 

 Defendants. 

__________________________________________/ 

ORDER SUSTAINING IN PART AND OVERRULING IN PART OBJECTIONS, AND 

DIRECTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE TO ADDRESS PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR 

DOCUMENTS 

 On July 31, 2014, Plaintiff Angel Peterson, a Michigan Department of Corrections 

(“MDOC”) prisoner proceeding pro se filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Rocky 

Burris, Michigan State Industries, and Millicent Warren, alleging numerous violations of state 

and federal law arising out of the termination of her employment with the prison dental lab. On 

December 4, 2014 Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that Peterson had failed to state 

claims upon which relief could be granted. See ECF No. 22. That motion was granted in part 

and denied in part on June 17, 2015. See ECF No. 42. Her claims for deliberate indifference in 

violation of the Eighth Amendment and equal protection violations under the Fifth and 

Fourteenth Amendments survived that order, as did her state law claims. 

Pursuant to the amended scheduling order in this matter, discovery closed on February 

21, 2016. On March 9, 2016 Peterson filed a motion for the release of subpoenaed information 

and sanctions. See ECF No. 71. Then on March 23, 2016 Peterson filed a motion for sanctions 

based on Defendants’ refusal to produce the current Warden, Anthony Stewart, for a deposition, 

1:14-cv-13000-TLL-EAS Doc # 85 Filed 07/26/16 Pg 1 of 6 Pg ID 701
- 2 - 

their refusal to produce an additional representative of Defendant Michigan State Industries, and 

the Michigan Department of Corrections’ refusal to mail Peterson’s payment to the court reporter 

for various depositions. See ECF No. 75. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford issued an order 

denying both of Peterson’s motions on June 7, 2016. See ECF No. 83. Peterson then objected to 

the magistrate judge’s order on June 29, 2016. See ECF No. 84. Peterson’s objections will be 

overruled in part. 

I. 

The decision and order of a non-dispositive motion by a magistrate judge will be upheld 

unless it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 

72(a); Massey v. City of Ferndale, 7 F.3d 506, 509 (6th Cir. 1993). A district judge shall 

consider such objections and may modify or set aside any portion of the magistrate judge’s order 

found to be clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). “The ‘clearly erroneous’ 

standard applies only to the magistrate judge’s factual findings; legal conclusions are reviewed 

under the plenary ‘contrary to law’ standard . . . . Therefore, [the reviewing court] must exercise 

independent judgment with respect to the magistrate judge’s conclusions of law.” Haworth, Inc. 

v. Herman Miller, Inc., 162 F.R.D. 289, 291 (W.D. Mich. 1995) (citing Gandee v. Glaser, 785 F. 

Supp. 684, 686 (S.D. Ohio 1992)). “An order is contrary to law when it fails to apply or 

misapplies relevant statutes, case law, or rules of procedure.” Ford Motor Co. v. United States, 

2009 WL 2922875, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 9, 2009)). 

Objections to a magistrate judge’s non-dispositive order must be both timely and specific. 

See Slater v. Potter, 28 F. App’x 512, 512 (6th Cir. 2002). A general objection, or one that 

merely restates the arguments previously presented, does not sufficiently identify alleged errors 

on the part of the magistrate judge. See VanDiver v. Martin, 304 F.Supp.2d 934, 937 

1:14-cv-13000-TLL-EAS Doc # 85 Filed 07/26/16 Pg 2 of 6 Pg ID 702
- 3 - 

(E.D.Mich.2004). An “objection” that does nothing more than disagree with a magistrate judge’s 

determination, “without explaining the source of the error,” is not considered a valid objection. 

Howard v. Sec’y of Health and Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991). Without 

specific objections, “[t]he functions of the district court are effectively duplicated as both the 

magistrate and the district court perform identical tasks. This duplication of time and effort 

wastes judicial resources rather than saving them, and runs contrary to the purposes of the 

Magistrate’s Act.” Id. 

A. 

 Plaintiff Peterson first argues that the magistrate judge erred in denying her motion for 

the release of subpoenaed information and sanctions. The subpoena in question had directed 

McDonald Roofing to produce a 2013 Roofing survey of the Women’s Huron Valley 

Correctional Facility “[m]inus any information that could be used for escape purposes.” 

McDonald Roofing apparently responded to the subpoena with the survey, which also included 

various drawings of buildings on prison grounds. After an administrative hearing was held, 

MDOC determined that the drawings could be used for escape purposes and returned the 

documents to the roofing company. MDOC has represented that it does not object to the survey 

being sent back to Peterson if the drawings are redacted. Noting that Defendants had a “valid 

interest in maintaining prison security”, the magistrate judge found that MDOC officials properly 

addressed and withheld the documents pursuant to an administrative hearing. 

 Peterson argues that the magistrate judge did not properly apply the law related to 

obstruction of mail, given her First Amendment right to communicate by mail. “A prisoner’s 

right to receive mail is protected by the First Amendment, but prison officials may impose 

restrictions that are reasonably related to security or other legitimate penological objectives.” 

1:14-cv-13000-TLL-EAS Doc # 85 Filed 07/26/16 Pg 3 of 6 Pg ID 703
- 4 - 

Sallier v. Brooks, 343 F.3d 868, 873 (6th Cir. 2003). Withholding the 2013 roofing survey and 

prison maps from Peterson was reasonably related to Defendant’s security interests, and 

therefore not in violation of Peterson’s First Amendment right to receive mail. 

Peterson also argues that she was not informed that her mail would be withheld in a 

timely manner. Where a prison believes that mail that threatens prison security and should be 

withheld a prisoner is entitled to a fact-finding hearing conducted pursuant to Michigan 

Administrative Code Rule 791.3310. Under that rule, a prisoner must receive “sufficient written 

notice of the purpose of a fact-finding hearing sufficiently prior to the hearing to allow 

preparation of a response.” Id. Peterson acknowledges that she was granted a hearing under Rule 

791.3310 to address the withholding of her mail, but argues that MDOC officials did not address 

the receipt of the documents in a timely manner. The possibility that MDOC was delayed in 

addressing receipt of the documents does not entitle Peterson to the relief she seeks (release of 

the documents), since delay does not change the fact that Peterson has no First Amendment right 

to documents threatening the facility’s legitimate security interests. 

The magistrate judge’s decision denying Peterson’s motion for release of the subpoenaed 

information is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. If Plaintiff Peterson believes that the 

redacted documents are essential to her case, she may request an extension of discovery in order 

to obtain those documents. 

B. 

Plaintiff Peterson also requests clarification as to the disposition of her request for the 

production of documents. Plaintiff’s request was not brought as a separate motion, but is located 

in the second to last paragraph of her motion requesting sanctions for Defendant’s failure to 

attend its deposition. See ECF No. 75 ¶ 22. Plaintiff is correct that the magistrate judge did not 

1:14-cv-13000-TLL-EAS Doc # 85 Filed 07/26/16 Pg 4 of 6 Pg ID 704
- 5 - 

address this issue. Peterson’s second objection will therefore be sustained, and the magistrate 

judge will be directed to address Peterson’s request for the production of documents in the first 

instance. 

C. 

 Plaintiff’s third objection relates to MDOC’s alleged mishandling of her payment to the 

court reporter for various depositions. Peterson argues that the magistrate judge erred in failing 

to apply the Turner standard to that claim. See Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987). She also 

notes that she was harmed by receiving a “most wretched letter” from the court reporter. 

Plaintiff Peterson has not shown that the fee dispute led to any harm affecting the 

pendency of this case relating to the termination of her employment with the prison dental lab. 

The deposition payment issue appears to be a separate dispute Peterson has with MDOC 

regarding the processing of legal mail. The magistrate judge’s decision denying Peterson’s 

motion is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. 

II.

 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff Angel Peterson’s Objection, ECF No. 77, are 

SUSTAINED IN PART AND OVERRULED IN PART. 

 It is further ORDERED that the magistrate judge is DIRECTED to address Peterson’s 

request for documents, ECF No. 75 ¶ 22. 

s/Thomas L. Ludington 

 THOMAS L. LUDINGTON 

 United States District Judge 

Dated: July 26, 2016 

1:14-cv-13000-TLL-EAS Doc # 85 Filed 07/26/16 Pg 5 of 6 Pg ID 705
- 6 - 

 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served 

upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first 

class U.S. mail and on Angel Peterson #240544, Huron Valley 

Complex, 3201 Bemis Road, Ypsilanti, MI 48197 by first class U.S. 

mail on July 26, 2016. 

 s/Michael A. Sian 

 Michael A. Sian, Case Manager 

1:14-cv-13000-TLL-EAS Doc # 85 Filed 07/26/16 Pg 6 of 6 Pg ID 706