McAllister v. Adecco Group N.A., 1:16-cv-00447

Pro se plaintiff Willis C. McAllister filed Title VII and § 1981 employment-discrimination claims; court previously dismissed § 1981 claims against Trane and allowed amendment with restriction that no new parties/claims be added without leave.
Plaintiff later filed a First Amended Complaint adding Adecco Group A.G., Ingersoll Rand, and Shawna Huddy; the court struck those additions and instructed Rule 15 leave was required.
Plaintiff moved for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint (SAC) to add those defendants; Magistrate Judge Mansfield denied the motion as to Title VII claims (with prejudice) as futile because they were time‑barred and did not relate back under Rule 15(c), and denied without prejudice as to § 1981 claims.
Plaintiff appealed the magistrate judge’s May 10, 2017 Order only as to whether his Title VII claim against Ingersoll Rand relates back to his original complaint under Rule 15(c).
The district court reviewed under the deferential "clearly erroneous or contrary to law" standard for magistrate non‑dispositive orders and affirmed: McAllister had not shown Ingersoll Rand lacked identity notice or that it would have been sued but for a mistake, and the Title VII claim was therefore time‑barred and futile.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether McAllister's Title VII claim against Ingersoll Rand relates back to the original complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c)(1)(C)	McAllister argues Krupski controls: Ingersoll Rand had notice within Rule 4(m) and knew or should have known it would have been sued but for a mistake	Defendants and magistrate judge argued McAllister was aware of Ingersoll Rand's identity early in the case (identified in pleadings and summons activity), so no "mistake concerning identity" exists and relation‑back fails	Court held relation‑back fails: McAllister was not mistaken about identity, record shows awareness of Ingersoll Rand, no timely notice under Rule 4(m); Title VII claim is time‑barred and amendment would be futile
Whether the magistrate judge's May 10, 2017 order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law	McAllister contended the order was erroneous in finding no relation‑back for Ingersoll Rand	Defendants maintained the magistrate applied Rule 15(c) correctly and the Title VII claims were untimely	Court held magistrate's order was neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law and affirmed the order

Krupski v. Costa Crociere S.p.A., 560 U.S. 538 (relation‑back when plaintiff was mistaken about proper defendant's identity and the unnamed defendant should have known within Rule 4(m))
Butler v. Nat’l Cmty. Renaissance of Cal., 766 F.3d 1191 (discussing Rule 15(c)(1)(C) relation‑back elements)
Easley v. Cromartie, 532 U.S. 234 (defining "clearly erroneous" standard)
Concrete Pipe & Prods. v. Constr. Laborers Pension Tr., 508 U.S. 602 (noting deferential review under clearly erroneous standard)
Howell v. Hamilton, 231 F.3d 615 (district court discretion to consider new evidence when conducting de novo review of magistrate dispositive recommendations)
Miller v. Rykoff‑Sexton, Inc., 845 F.2d 209 (denial of leave to amend as futile is akin to a motion to dismiss)