IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION

CAMERON O. JAMES, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) NO. 3:24-cv-00455 v. ) ) JUDGE CAMPBELL ANDREW MCCULLOUGH, et al., ) MAGISTRATE JUDGE HOLMES ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Pending before the Court Plaintiff’s Motion for Review of the Magistrate Judge’s Order denying Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery. (Doc. No. 33, seeking review of Order, Doc. No. 31, denying Plaintiff’s motion, Doc. No. 30). The Order states that the motion to compel discovery was denied because “there is no indication in [the] motion that [Plaintiff] has actually attempted to obtain the subject information from Defendants through a discovery request to them.” (Doc. No. 31). The Order explains that before Plaintiff can pursue a Court order compelling the production of evidence, he must first request the evidence from the Defendants through a discovery request. Plaintiff states that he seeks review of the Magistrate Judge’s Order because he believes the Defendants’ attorneys will withhold specific evidence. Under

(b)(1)(A), a district court may “reconsider” a magistrate judge’s decision on a non-dispositive, non-excepted, pending pretrial matter only if it is “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Bisig v. Time Warner Cable, Inc.,

, 219 (6th Cir. 2019). Plaintiff’s subjective belief that Defendants’ attorneys will withhold evidence is not grounds to preemptively compel such evidence before a discovery request has been made. Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge’s Order (Doc. No. 31) is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law and is hereby AFFIRMED. It is so ORDERED.

WILLIAM L. CAMPBELL, i CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE