Automated Summary
Key Facts
Plaintiff Harrison Shaw, Jr. filed a second amended complaint against CNS Networks LLC on January 15, 2026, before the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (R&R) was adopted. The R&R, issued on January 28, 2026, recommended allowing Shaw 15 days to amend his complaint after his first amended complaint (filed July 28, 2025) was met with a motion to dismiss by CNS Networks (filed August 1, 2025). The court adopted the R&R, concluding that the second amended complaint was impermissible at the time of filing under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) due to lack of court leave, but now permits it upon adoption of the R&R. The court directed the clerk to strike the original filing (ECF No. 41) and re-docket it as of the order's date, making the second amended complaint the operative pleading and dismissing the pending motion to dismiss as moot.
Issues
The Court addressed whether Plaintiff Harrison Shaw, Jr. should be allowed to file a second amended complaint without prior court leave, as his initial amended complaint (ECF No. 22) had already used his right to amend as a matter of course. The Magistrate Judge recommended granting leave to correct drafting issues identified in the motion to dismiss (ECF No. 24), which the Court adopted. The Court concluded the second amended complaint (ECF No. 41) was impermissible at filing but now valid following its adoption of the Report and Recommendation.
Holdings
The Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (R&R), allowing Plaintiff Harrison Shaw, Jr. to file a second amended complaint. Although Shaw filed the second amended complaint before the R&R was adopted, the Court found it impermissible at the time. However, following adoption of the R&R, the Court directs the clerk to strike the original filing and re-docket the second amended complaint as the operative complaint. The pending motion to dismiss is dismissed as moot.
Remedies
- Once the second amended complaint is re-docketed, the pending motion to dismiss (ECF No. 24) will be dismissed as moot, as the re-docketed complaint becomes the operative pleading.
- The court determines that Plaintiff's second amended complaint (ECF No. 41) was impermissible at the time filed but now permissible after adopting the Report and Recommendation. The clerk is directed to strike the complaint and re-docket it as of the date of this Order.
Legal Principles
The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), which governs the right to amend pleadings, and Rule 72(b), which outlines the standard for reviewing unobjected-to magistrate judge recommendations. Under Rule 15(a), plaintiffs may amend once without leave after certain deadlines, and subsequent amendments require court permission. Rule 72(b) requires clear error review for unobjected portions of a magistrate judge's report.
Precedent Name
Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp.
Cited Statute
Civil Rights Act of 1964
Judge Name
- Andrew L. Teel
- Holly A. Brady
Passage Text
- The Court finds that the R&R is not clearly erroneous and is amply supported by the record. The Court agrees that allowing Shaw to amend his complaint is appropriate here.
- The amended complaint was impermissible at the time filed but, given the Court's acceptance of the R&R, it is permissible now.
- "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).