Wallace v. Johnson et al
Filing
49
ORDER, DENYING 38 APPEAL OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION to District Court filed by Maurice Wallace. Signed by Judge Michael J. Reagan on 11/2/2012. (mmr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
MAURICE WALLACE,
Plaintiff,
vs.
YOLANDE JOHNSON,
KENNETH BARTLEY, and
TERRY CALIPER,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 12-CV-0899-MJR-SCW
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
REAGAN, District Judge:
Plaintiff Maurice Wallace is an inmate in the custody of the Illinois
Department of Corrections, housed at Tamms Correctional Center.
Pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983, Wallace has filed suit against prison officials for violating his
constitutional rights.
Wallace alleges that, in retaliation for filing administrative
grievances, he was provided an antibiotic medication to which he was allergic.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), Plaintiff Wallace is
before the Court appealing: (1) Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Williams’ September 27,
2012, Order temporarily staying discovery, pending Defendants filing a motion for
summary judgment and/or filing a supplemental response to Wallace’s motion for leave to
amend the complaint; and (2) Judge Williams’ October 3, 2012, ruling taking under
advisement Wallace’s motions for appointment of counsel (Doc. 38; see also Docs. 43 and
48). Wallace’s request for reconsideration was denied by Judge Williams (Doc. 37).
Wallace now argues that it is unfair to not appoint counsel, and to place his motion to
1
compel “on the back burner,” while allowing Defendants the opportunity to file a motion
for summary judgment and to supplement their response to his motion to amend the
complaint. Without completing discovery, Wallace contends he will be unable to oppose
a motion for summary judgment. Defendants counter that Wallace did not object at the
September 27, 2012, hearing before Judge Williams; therefore, he was waived his right to
appeal (Doc. 44). Defendants also observe that Judge Williams has not actually ruled on
any of Wallace’s motion, so he has not been prejudiced; rather, the pleadings are being
sorted out before moving forward with discovery issues.
The rulings at issue all concern non-dispositive matters.
Therefore,
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), the magistrate judge’s disposition will
be set aside only if it is “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” See also Hall v. Norfolk
Southern Ry. Co., 469 F.3d 590, 595 (7th Cir. 2006). “[T]he district court can overturn the
magistrate judge’s ruling only if the district court is left with the definite and firm
conviction that a mistake has been made.” Weeks v. Samsung Heavy Industries Co., Ltd.,
126 F.3d 926, 943 (7th Cir.1997).
Given Wallace’s pro se status at this juncture, and the fact that he
immediately moved for reconsideration of Judge Williams’ September 27, 2012, rulings,
the Court does not consider the Rule 72(a) appeal to have been waived.
The undersigned district judge does not perceive any prejudice to Plaintiff
Wallace stemming from Magistrate Judge Williams’ rulings. Defendants did not have a
copy of Wallace’s proposed amended complaint prior to the September 27, 2012, hearing
before Judge Williams, so they were entitled to review that document and make a
supplemental, informed response to Wallace’s motion to amend the complaint. If Judge
2
Williams has both the fully briefed motion to amend the complaint, and Defendants’
motion for summary judgment, he will be able to more efficiently determine how to
proceed relative to the complaint, as well as the pending discovery issues, and the
appropriateness of appointing counsel. All of these issues are interdependent and Judge
Williams’ plan promotes the efficient and fair resolution of Wallace’s motions.
For the reasons stated, Wallace’s appeal of Judge Williams’ rulings (which
merely postponed ruling on Wallace’s motion to amend and motion for counsel) (Doc. 38)
is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:
November 2, 2012
s/ Michael J. Reagan
MICHAEL J. REAGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?