Opinion
3:09-CV-00315-LRH-VPC.
November 18, 2010
ORDER
Before the court is Plaintiff's objection to magistrate judge's ruling pursuant to Local Rule IB 3-1 (#70). Defendants filed a response (#71), and Plaintiff filed a reply (#72). The objection seeks reconsideration of the magistrate judge's ruling (#69) denying Plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended complaint (#42).
Refers to the court's docket entry number.
The magistrate judge's denial of leave to amend is a final determination of a pretrial matter pursuant to the magistrate judge's authority under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and Local Rule IB 1-3. Accordingly, a district judge may reconsider the magistrate judge's order only if it is "clearly erroneous or contrary to law." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a); LR IB 3-1(a).
Having considered the parties' briefing, the court concludes that the magistrate judge's denial of leave to amend the complaint is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. Plaintiff's allegations in support of his Eighth Amendment claim are identical to the allegations in his original complaint. Also, notwithstanding the amended allegations supporting Plaintiffs' claims under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, the allegations fail to state a claim for the same reasons stated in this court's screening order of March 11, 2010 (#13). Because the proposed amendments would be futile, leave to amend was properly denied.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's objection to magistrate judge's ruling (#70) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 17th day of November, 2010.