Donelson v. Shearing et al

Filing 189

ORDER DENYING Appeal of Magistrate Decision to District Court by Charles Donelson re 177 Order on Motion to Withdraw as Attorney (Doc. 182 ). Signed by Judge Staci M. Yandle on 11/22/2016. (mah)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

CHARLES DONELSON,
Plaintiff,
vs.
DR. SHEARING, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 15-CV-95-SMY-RJD

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Charles Donelson’s Motion to Appeal Magistrate
Judge Decision to District Court Judge (Doc. 182). Plaintiff contends that he was not given an
opportunity to respond to his recruited counsel’s motion to withdraw prior to the Magistrate
Judge’s Order granting the motion (Doc. 177). For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s motion is
DENIED and the ruling of Magistrate Judge Daly is AFFIRMED.
In reviewing a magistrate judge’s ruling on a non-dispositive matter, a district judge
should not disturb the ruling unless it is contrary to law or clearly erroneous. 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(A); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(a); SDIL-LR 73.1(a). There is no constitutional or statutory
right to court-appointed counsel in a federal civil case. See Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 649
(7th Cir. 2007). Nevertheless, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) permits a court, in its discretion, to ask
lawyers to represent indigent litigants on a volunteer basis. Once counsel is assigned, Local Rule
83.11 provides that “counsel may apply to be relieved of an order of assignment on the following
grounds or on such grounds as the assigning judge finds adequate for good cause shown […]”
S.D.L.R. 83.11.
Here, Judge Daly determined, based on the allegations in Plaintiff’s pro se motion for

new counsel recruitment (Doc. 172) and Counsel’s motion to withdraw (Doc. 176), that the
attorney-client relationship was beyond repair. Plaintiff does not disagree, but merely takes issue
with his inability to respond to the motion prior to the termination of appointed counsel. The
Court finds that Magistrate Judge Daly’s ruling was neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to
law. Accordingly the motion is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: November 22, 2016
s/ Staci M. Yandle
STACI M. YANDLE
United States District Judge

2