Amawi v. Walton et al

Filing 123

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, The Court ADOPTS the Report (Doc. 65 ) in its entirety;DENIES Amawis motion for a preliminary injunction without prejudice (Doc. 41 ); STRIKES Amawis request for reconsideration (Doc. 77 ) as duplicative of his pending motion for reconsideration (Doc. 38 ); OVERRULES Amawis objection (Doc. 77 ) to Magistrate Judge Fraziers November 18, 2013, order (Doc. 64 ); and AFFIRMS that order (Doc. 64 ). Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 3/5/2014. (jdh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
MOHAMMED ZAKI AMAWI,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 13-cv-866-JPG-PMF

J.S. WALTON, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on a variety of requests within a single filing by
plaintiff Mohammed Zaki Amawi (Doc. 77).
I.

Objection to Report and Recommendation
The Court first considers the Report and Recommendation (“Report”) (Doc. 65) of

Magistrate Judge Philip M. Frazier recommending that the Court deny Amawi’s motion for a
preliminary injunction (Doc. 41). Amawi has objected to the Report (Doc. 77).
The Court may accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations of the magistrate judge in a report and recommendation. Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b)(3). The Court must review de novo the portions of the report to which objections are made.
Id. “If no objection or only partial objection is made, the district court judge reviews those
unobjected portions for clear error.” Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir.
1999).
Amawi is incarcerated at the United States Penitentiary at Marion, Illinois. He has been
confined to the Communications Management Unit for more than four years. In that unit, his
communications with outside individuals are monitored and restricted more than those of inmates
in other units. He asks the Court to order prison officials to transfer him to general population

housing. At the time Magistrate Judge Frazier issued the Report, the defendants had not been
served and had not appeared in the case. Consequently, the Court did not have the benefit of
adversarial argument on the preliminary injunction factors. On this basis, Magistrate Judge
Frazier recommended the Court deny Amawi’s motion without prejudice. Amawi objects,
complaining that Magistrate Judge Frazier did not explain his decision.
The Court believes Magistrate Judge Frazier’s reasoning was sufficiently clear and that he
was correct in declining to recommend a preliminary injunction issue without input from both
sides of this case, particularly about the relative burdens of granting or denying the motion. The
Court notes that some of the defendants have recently been served and may be able to respond to a
newly-filed motion for preliminary injunction should Amawi chose to file one. The Court will
therefore adopt the Report (Doc. 65) and deny Amawi’s motion for a preliminary injunction
without prejudice (Doc. 41).
II.

Reconsideration of Court’s Threshold Order
Amawi asks the Court to reconsider its decision under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A regarding certain

claims he attempted to plead in his complaint (Doc. 8). This filing is duplicative of Amawi’s
motion for reconsideration (Doc. 38) of the same order, which is still pending. The Court will
address Amawi’s request for reconsideration when it considers that motion.
III.

Objection to Magistrate Judge Frazier’s Order
Amawi objects to Magistrate Judge Frazier’s November 18, 2013, order (Doc. 64) denying

his motion to take judicial notice of a court case (Doc. 40), motions for recruitment of counsel
(Doc. 3 & 39), and motion for free copies (Doc. 37).
A district court reviewing a magistrate judge’s decision on nondispositive issues should
modify or set aside that decision if it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(a); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). Accordingly, the Court will affirm Magistrate Judge Frazier’s
2

decision unless his factual findings are clearly erroneous or his legal conclusions are contrary to
law. Id.
The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Frazier’s order and finds that it is not clearly
erroneous or contrary to law. Accordingly, the Court will overrule Amawi’s objection and will
affirm Magistrate Judge Frazier’s order.
IV.

Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court:


ADOPTS the Report (Doc. 65) in its entirety;



DENIES Amawi’s motion for a preliminary injunction without prejudice (Doc. 41);



STRIKES Amawi’s request for reconsideration (Doc. 77) as duplicative of his pending
motion for reconsideration (Doc. 38);



OVERRULES Amawi’s objection (Doc. 77) to Magistrate Judge Frazier’s November 18,
2013, order (Doc. 64); and



AFFIRMS that order (Doc. 64).

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 5, 2014
s/J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
DISTRICT JUDGE

3