Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 07-2099.
May 8, 2008
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Before the Court is an Appeal from a Magistrate Judge Decision (Record Document 9) filed by pro se plaintiff, Peter Ray Alfred, Jr. ("Alfred"). On March 25, 2008, Alfred filed a "Motion for a[n] Emergency Expedite[d] Ruling and Service on Response to Memorandum Order." See Record Document 7. The Magistrate Judge denied the motion, stating "the court will review Plaintiff's lawsuit as expeditiously as possible." See Record Document 8. Alfred has now appealed to the district court, asking that the Magistrate Judge's ruling be reversed. See Record Document 9. Alfred argues that "the court is turning a blind eye on a serious matter" and that "the courts are hiding [the defendants'] corruption and wrongdoings." Id.
The decision by a Magistrate Judge on a motion to expedite is a non-dispositive matter. This action is not listed in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) as one of the dispositive motions (often referred to as the "excepted motions") that a Magistrate Judge may not conclusively decide. Magistrate Judge Hornsby's order denying the motion to expedite was not a recommendation to the district court; rather, it was an order from the Magistrate Judge on a non-dispositive matter that requires the district court to uphold the ruling unless it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); see also Castillo v. Frank, 70 F.3d 382, 385 (5th Cir. 1995) Perales v. Casillas, 950 F.2d 1066, 1070 (5th Cir. 1992). This Court will review the Magistrate Judge's legal conclusions de novo, and will review his factual findings for clear error. See Choate v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 03-CV-2111, 2005 WL 1109432, *1 (N.D.Tex. May 5, 2005).
Alfred filed his civil rights complaint on November 29, 2007.See Record Document 1. In February 2008, the Court completed an initial review of the complaint and ordered Alfred "to allege specific facts which support the conclusion that his constitutional rights were violated" and to answer eighteen questions regarding his factual allegations. See Record Document 5. Alfred responded on February 21, 2008. See Record Document 6. He then filed his motion for an emergency expedited ruling on March 25, 2008. See Record Document 7. In all, this case has been pending less than six months.
Alfred has simply not met his burden in demonstrating that the Magistrate Judge's denial of his "Motion for a[n] Emergency Expedite[d] Ruling and Service on Response to Memorandum Order" was either clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The order denying Alfred's request stated that Alfred's case would be reviewed as expeditiously as possible. See Record Document 8. The Magistrate Judge has the responsibility of reviewing hundreds of civil rights complaints and Alfred simply has not presented evidence warranting expedited consideration of his particular complaint. Likewise, he has presented no evidence, other than his own conclusory allegations, to support his claims that the Court is turning a blind eye and/or is hiding the defendants' corruption and wrongdoings.
Accordingly,IT IS ORDERED that pro se plaintiff, Peter Ray Alfred, Jr.'s magistrate appeal (Record Document 9) is DENIED.