UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ALLEN DANIEL,

Plaintiff,

v.

BLAINE LAFLER, ET AL.,

Defendants. 

 /

Case No. 2:08-CV-13817

ORDER REJECTING PLAINTIFF’S “APPEAL OF 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION” AND AFFIRMING THE 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S “ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO EXTEND”

Plaintiff Allen Daniel filed a pro se civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

1983. The court referred hearing and determination of any pretrial matters, including

discovery disputes, to Magistrate Judge Paul J. Komives on January 9, 2009. (1/9/2009

Order.) On April 9, 2009, Plaintiff filed the instant “Appeal of Magistrate Judge

Decision” with this court. 

This court’s reference to the magistrate judge vests the magistrate judge with the

power to hear and determine non-dispositive motions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1)(A). Plaintiffs, however, retain a right to have the court reconsider the

magistrate judge’s determinations “where it has been shown that the magistrate judge's

order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). 

In his “Appeal,” Plaintiff requests that this court reverse the magistrate judge’s

March 23, 2009 “Order Granting Motion to Extend.” In the March 23, 2009 order, the

magistrate judge granted Defendants an extension of time in which to file an answer to

2:08-cv-13817-RHC-PJK Doc # 61 Filed 05/20/09 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 709
2

Plaintiff’s complaint while the magistrate judge considers Defendants’ motion to revoke

Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status. The court therefore construes Plaintiff’s “Appeal” to

be seeking reconsideration of the magistrate judge’s order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1)(A). Plaintiff appears to argue that the magistrate judge should not have

granted Defendants an extension of time because Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have

engaged in illegal conduct. While Plaintiff makes conclusory statements regarding

Defendants’ conduct and appears to argue substantive issues in the case, Plaintiff does

not demonstrate how the magistrate judge's order granting an extension of time to

Defendants “is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). Nor

does the court find that the magistrate judge’s order was “clearly erroneous or contrary

to law.” Id. The magistrate judge’s order simply economizes the court’s and the parties’

resources by forestalling future briefing until the briefing is found to be necessary. 

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Appeal of Magistrate Judge Decision” [Dkt. # 54]

is REJECTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the magistrate judge’s “Order Granting Motion

to Extend” [Dkt. # 48] is AFFIRMED. 

s/Robert H. Cleland 

ROBERT H. CLELAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: May 20, 2009

2:08-cv-13817-RHC-PJK Doc # 61 Filed 05/20/09 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 710
S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C2 ORDERS\08-13817.DANIEL.Deny.Appeal.MJ.Order.ljd.wpd

3

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record

on this date, May 20, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Lisa G. Wagner 

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk

(313) 234-5522

2:08-cv-13817-RHC-PJK Doc # 61 Filed 05/20/09 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 711