1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

RICKEY BILLS, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 15-cv-11414 

 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

v. 

PAUL KLEE, et al., 

 Defendants. 

__________________________________________________________________/ 

ORDER (1) OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTION (ECF No. 93) TO 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION AND SETTING CASE 

DEADLINES (ECF No. 92) 

Plaintiff Rickey Bills is a state inmate in the custody of the Michigan 

Department of Corrections. In this prisoner civil-rights action, Bills alleges that the 

Defendants interfered with his right to access the courts and retaliated against him 

for filing lawsuits. (See Sec. Am. Compl., ECF No. 67.) 

On July 14, 2020, the Court received a filing from Bills. (See ECF No. 91.) 

The filing was difficult to follow, but it was titled “This Motion,” and the assigned 

Magistrate Judge therefore construed the filing as a motion. (See Order, ECF No. 

92.) In the motion, Bills (1) sought permission to amend his Complaint to add a 

claim arising out of the confiscation of a defibrillator that he was provided and (2) 

asked the Court to provide him certain documents that it had previously mailed to 

him during the March – June 2017 time period. (See ECF No. 91.) 

Case 2:15-cv-11414-MFL-DRG ECF No. 98, PageID.1002 Filed 04/20/21 Page 1 of 4
2 

The Magistrate Judge issued an order denying the motion on January 19, 2021. 

(See Order, ECF No. 92.) The Magistrate Judge first denied Bills’ request to amend 

his Complaint. (See id., PageID.978.) He explained that Bills was not entitled to 

amend at this late stage of the case, and, in any event, Bills’ proposed claim arising 

out of the confiscation of his defibrillator was unrelated to his only remaining claims 

in this action. (See id.) The Magistrate Judge next concluded that there were no 

documents pertinent to Bills’ claims for the Court to send him from the time period 

Bills’ identified. (See id.) Finally, the Magistrate Judge set a schedule for the parties 

to file witness lists, complete discovery, and file dispositive motions. (See id., 

PageID.979.) 

On February 2, 2021, Bills filed what he called an “objection” to the 

Magistrate Judge’s order. (See Objection, ECF No. 93.) But in the objection, Bills 

did not identify what portion(s) of the Magistrate Judge’s order were objectionable. 

Nor did he raise any issue with the Magistrate Judge’s legal analysis. Instead, he 

explained that he recently had a false-positive COVID-19 test, he had been 

transferred to a medical facility away from his legal papers, and he could not file 

objections at that time. (See id.) Then, on March 15, 2021, Bills filed a second 

document with the Court. (See ECF No. 97.) In that document, Bills again said that 

he could not file objections because of his false-positive COVID-19 test and his 

subsequent separation from his legal papers. (See id., PageID.997.) Bills therefore 

Case 2:15-cv-11414-MFL-DRG ECF No. 98, PageID.1003 Filed 04/20/21 Page 2 of 4
3 

“request[ed] that the objections be carried over for when [he] do[es] the discovery.” 

(Id., PageID.997.) Bills also included with this document a witness list that 

complied with the Magistrate Judge’s scheduling order. (See id., PageID.998-999.) 

 Bills’ objection is OVERRULED. He has not identified any specific 

objection to the Magistrate Judge’s order. Nor has he even suggested in the broadest 

sense how the Magistrate Judge may have erred. Moreover, Bills has not shown that 

his separation from his legal papers left him unable to file objections to the 

Magistrate Judge’s order. The order was relatively straight-forward, and Bills has 

not sufficiently explained why the separation from his legal papers rendered him 

unable to explain why he believed the Magistrate Judge may have erred. Finally, it 

appears that Bills now has access to his legal materials and typewriter again, and he 

has demonstrated an ability to follow the Magistrate Judge’s order by timely filing 

his witness list in compliance with the Magistrate Judge’s instructions. Bills simply 

has not provided any basis to sustain his objections or to grant him additional time 

to raise more-specific objections. The Court will therefore not disturb the Magistrate 

Judge’s order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: April 20, 2021 

Case 2:15-cv-11414-MFL-DRG ECF No. 98, PageID.1004 Filed 04/20/21 Page 3 of 4
4 

 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the 

parties and/or counsel of record on April 20, 2021, by electronic means and/or 

ordinary mail. 

 s/Holly A. Monda 

 Case Manager 

 (810) 341-9764 

Case 2:15-cv-11414-MFL-DRG ECF No. 98, PageID.1005 Filed 04/20/21 Page 4 of 4