Wallace v. Johnson et al

Filing 63

ORDER, DENYING 56 Rule 72 Appeal of 54 Magistrate Judge's November 27, 2012, Order. Signed by Judge Michael J. Reagan on 1/15/2013. (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

ORDER
REAGAN, District Judge:
Plaintiff Maurice Wallace is an inmate in the custody of the Illinois
Department of Corrections, currently housed at Menard Correctional Center.

Pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Wallace has filed suit against prison officials for violating his
constitutional rights while he was housed at Tamms Correctional Center.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), Plaintiff Wallace is
before the Court appealing Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Williams’ November 27, 2012,
Order (Doc. 54) finding Plaintiff’s November 20, 2012, motion to amend the complaint
(Doc. 52) to be moot because it was essentially duplicative of Plaintiff’s August 23, 2012,
motion to amend (Doc. 17). Wallace argues that the November proposed amended
complaint adds facts, assertions, documentation and authority to the August proposed
amended complaint.

Wallace questions ‘the wisdom” of Judge Williams’ ruling.

The ruling at issue concerns a non-dispositive matter. Therefore, pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), the magistrate judge’s disposition will be set
1

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).
Questioning the wisdom of Judge Williams’ ruling, alone, is insufficient to
justify overturning that ruling. The August and November proposed amended complaints
assert the same legal claims against the same defendants, and the same relief is
requested—as noted by Judge Williams. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires
only notice pleading, not fact pleading. Amendment merely to “guild the lilly” is not
necessary and only serves to prolong litigation and increase the cost of litigation by
necessitating the defendants answer the amended pleading even though no material
changes have been made. Furthermore, the undersigned district judge does not perceive
any prejudice to Plaintiff Wallace stemming from Magistrate Judge Williams’ ruling, and
none is alleged.
For the reasons stated, Wallace’s appeal of Judge Williams’ November 27,
2012, ruling (Doc. 56) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:

January 15, 2013
s/ Michael J. Reagan
MICHAEL J. REAGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2