UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

Mary Ann McBride, et al., 

Plaintiffs,

v. Case No. 15-11222

Michigan Department of Honorable Sean F. Cox

Corrections, et. al., Magistrate Judge David R. Grand 

Defendants.

_________________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR ORDER BY

“INTERESTED PARTY” (Doc. #53)

Plaintiffs, and Michigan state prisoners, Mary Ann McBride, Brian Stanley Wittman, and

Ralph Williams (collectively “Plaintiffs”), filed this civil rights class action against multiple

defendants, claiming that they have been discriminated against for being deaf or significantly

hearing impaired. This Court has since referred all pretrial matters to Magistrate Judge David R.

Grand pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(A) and (b)(1)(B). (Doc. #17). 

On August 1, 2016, Edward Donald Burley filed a “Notice of Interested Party.” (Doc.

#53). In it, Burley advised that he is “an incarcerated person currently under the jurisdiction of

the MDOC [the Michigan Department of Corrections], a hearing disabled prisoner without

proper accommodations for [his] disability.” (Id. at 1). Burley further advised that he “currently

[has] pending before this very [C]ourt litigation entitled Burley v. MDOC, et al[.], Case No.

2:16-cv-10712, Hon. Judge Steeh presiding over the action.” (Id.). 

Burley’s Notice sought two things. First, he requested that the Court “officially take

notice that [he] is an interested party in this civil litigation against the MDOC.” (Id. at 2). 

1

2:15-cv-11222-SFC-DRG Doc # 56 Filed 10/24/16 Pg 1 of 5 Pg ID 989
Second, he sought an order from the Court “directing the clerk to furnish [him] the entire court

file, service of any and all further pleadings, motions, judgments, or other forms of legal filings

within this Court relating to the McBride case.” (Id. at 2). Burley sought this information

because the “evidence [already] discovered in this case may assist the Court in its judicial

economy and prompt resolution of the issues” before the Court in Burley’s case. (Id. at 1-2). No

response to Burley’s Notice was filed. 

On August 22, 2016, Magistrate Judge Grand entered an “Order Denying Request for

Order by ‘Interested Party.’” (Doc. #54, MJ Order). Burley timely objected to the Magistrate

Judge’s Order on September 6, 2016. (Doc. #55, Burley’s Objs.). The parties in this case have

not responded to Burley’s objection and the time to do so has passed. 

To the extent that any of Burley’s objections actually constitute proper objections, the

Court finds them to be without merit. The Court therefore ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Grand’s

“Order Denying Request for Order by ‘Interested Party.’” (Doc. #54). 

STANDARD OF REVIEW 

The Order at issue here addresses non-dispositive, pretrial matters and is therefore

governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a). Pursuant to Rule 72(a), an objecting party

must file objections to the Magistrate Judge’s written order within fourteen (14) days after being

served with a copy of the order. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(a). Objections must “(A) specify the part of

the order, proposed findings, recommendations, or report to which a person objects; and (B) state

the basis for the objection.” E.D. MICH. LR 72.1(d). 

Objections are not “a second opportunity to present the argument already considered by

the Magistrate Judge.” Betancourt v. Ace Ins. Co. of Puerto Rico, 313 F. Supp. 2d 32, 34

2

2:15-cv-11222-SFC-DRG Doc # 56 Filed 10/24/16 Pg 2 of 5 Pg ID 990
(D.P.R. 2004). Moreover, the district court should not consider arguments that have not first

been presented to the Magistrate Judge. See Stonecrest Partners, LLC v. Bank of Hampton

Roads, 770 F. Supp. 2d 778, 785 (E.D.N.C. 2011). 

“A Magistrate Judge’s resolution of a non-dispositive pretrial matter should be modified

or set aside on review by the district court only if it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” 

Colvin v. Martin, 2011 WL 318835, at *1 (W.D. Mich. Jan. 28, 2011) (citing FED. R. CIV. P.

72(a)). 

ANALYSIS 

First, Burley argues that Magistrate Judge Grand “only adjudicated ruling on the relief,

and not the actual request for the court to take judicial notice that Edward Donald Burley is an

interested party.” (Burley’s Objs. at Pg ID 980). Burley misapprehends the Magistrate Judge’s

Order. Magistrate Judge Grand did not “ignore” Burley’s request to be deemed an “interested

party.” The Order acknowledges the relief requested and essentially declines to take judicial

notice of it. Burley’s first objection has therefore failed to point to any specific deficiency in the

Magistrate Judge’s reasoning as to this point. Additionally, the Court finds that Magistrate

Judge Grand’s resolution of this issue was neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. 

Burley’s first objection is overruled. 

Second, Burley takes issue with Magistrate Judge Grand’s use of the word “says.” 

(Burley’s Objs. at Pg ID 981). Specifically, when summarizing the facts outlined in Burley’s

Notice, the Magistrate Judge’s Order notes that: “Burley says that he ‘currently [has] pending

before this very [C]ourt litigation entitled Burley v. MDOC ...’” (MJ Order at 2). According to

Burley, Magistrate Judge Grand’s use of the word “says” “call[s] into question the validity of

3

2:15-cv-11222-SFC-DRG Doc # 56 Filed 10/24/16 Pg 3 of 5 Pg ID 991
interested party Burley’s contentions.” (Burley’s Objs. at Pg ID 981). Again, Burley

misapprehends the Magistrate Judge’s Order. Magistrate Judge Grand does not question that

Burley is involved in pending litigation. In fact, the Order specifically acknowledges the civil

litigation and cites it as a reason why Burley’s request for certain information was denied: 

Since Burley already has a pending civil action against the MDOC before Judge

Steeh that raises similar claims as those raised in this case, to the extent that he

wishes to, and is entitled to obtain discovery, he may do so in that case.

(MJ Order at 2). As such, Burley’s second objection is without merit and is therefore overruled. 

Third, Burley “objects to Magistrate not having the parties file a response to the ‘Notice

of Interested Party.’” (Burley’s Objs. at Pg ID 981). Burley specifically claims that Magistrate

Judge Grand “foreclosed offering [the parties] opportunity to ‘file responsive pleadings’

concerning the Notice.” (Id.). This is simply not true. The Magistrate Judge’s Order merely

represents that no response had been filed. The parties chose not to file a response to the Notice

on their own accord. Burley’s argument here is without any merit. Accordingly, the third

objection is overruled. 

Finally, Burley “objects to the [M]agistrate’s gesture of foreclosing the proceedings to an

interested party under the law.” (Burley’s Objs. at 981). Burley argues that the Magistrate

Judge’s decision to deny his requested relief “essentially forecloses [Burley’s] right to

effectively, meaningfully, and adequately access this very court.” (Id.). Burley’s argument here

pertains to access to discovery from the McBride case that is relevant to Burley’s case. (Id.). In

making this argument, Burley wholly disregards the directive contained in Magistrate Judge

Grand’s Order. The Magistrate Judge offered Burley two alternative avenues in which such

discovery may be obtained. First, the Order advises that Burley may attempt to seek such

4

2:15-cv-11222-SFC-DRG Doc # 56 Filed 10/24/16 Pg 4 of 5 Pg ID 992
discovery in the civil litigation before Judge Steeh. Second, the Order advises that Burley can

attempt to seek such discovery directly from class counsel. As such, Burley’s final objection is

without merit and is therefore overruled.

CONCLUSION & ORDER 

For the reasons outlined above, Burley’s objections are overruled. As such, the

Magistrate Judge’s Order Denying Request For Order By “Interested Party” (Doc. #54) is

ADOPTED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 24, 2016 S/ Sean F. Cox 

Sean F. Cox

U. S. District Judge

I hereby certify that on October 24, 2016, the foregoing document was served on counsel of

record via electronic means and upon Edward Burley via First Class mail at the address below:

Edward Burley 

502426 

SAGINAW CORRECTIONAL FACILITY 

9625 PIERCE ROAD 

FREELAND, MI 48623 

S/ J. McCoy 

Case Manager 

5

2:15-cv-11222-SFC-DRG Doc # 56 Filed 10/24/16 Pg 5 of 5 Pg ID 993