Opinion
Civil No. 3:12-0313
01-16-2013
ARUN RATTAN, Plaintiff, v. GENERAL SESSIONS COURT OF DAVIDSON COUNTY and DAVIDSON COUNTY, Defendants.
Judge Trauger
Magistrate Judge Knowles
ORDER
On December 4, 2012, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 55), to which the pro se plaintiff has filed a "Response" that the court will interpret as objections to the Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 58). The Magistrate Judge has treated this ruling as a dispositive pretrial matter. As such, the district court must review de novo any portion to which a specific objection is made. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); United States v. Curtis, 237 F.3d 598, 603 (6th Cir. 2001); Massey v. City of Ferndale, 7 F.3d 506, 510 (6th Cir. 1993). Objections must be specific; an objection to the report in general is not sufficient and will result in waiver of further review. See Miller v. Currie, 50 F.3d 373, 380 (6th Cir. 1995).
Besides generally asserting that amendments should be freely allowed (apparently without requiring motions for leave to be made), the only specific objection this court can discern in the plaintiff's filing is that "The court did not state its reasons for its finding." (Docket No. 58 at 1) This assertion is in error. The Magistrate Judge pointed out that the Amended Complaint that was the subject of the defendants' Motion to Strike was filed without a motion for leave to file it. The plaintiff was not procedurally allowed to file an amended complaint as of right, in that the Magistrate Judge construed the contents of the plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint (Docket No. 18) as a first amended complaint (Docket No. 19). After the one amended complaint filed without leave, the plaintiff may not simply file additional amended complaints that are not accompanied by motions for leave to amend. Rule 15(a), FED. R. CIV. P.
The plaintiff's objections are OVERRULED, and the Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED. For the reasons expressed therein and herein, it is hereby ORDERED that the defendants' Motion to Strike (Docket No. 34) is GRANTED, and the Amended Complaint, which appears as Docket No. 32, is STRICKEN from the record.
It is so ORDERED.
_______________
ALETA A. TRAUGER
U.S. District Judge