United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
OPINION AND ORDER REJECTING PLAINTIFF'S
OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S DECISION TO STRIKE
AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DENY LEAVE TO AMEND
V. PARKER U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.
9, 2014, Plaintiff commenced this civil rights action against
various defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff's claims against Defendants arise from his
arrest for an alleged parole violation, the revocation of his
parole, and events that occurred after he was re-paroled in
May 2011. The matter has been referred to Magistrate Judge
Stephanie Dawkins Davis for all pretrial matters. It
previously was referred to Magistrate Judge Michael
August 15, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend
his complaint, which Magistrate Judge Hluchaniuk denied in an
order entered October 26, 2015. (ECF No. 134.) This was not
Plaintiff's first attempt to amend his pleading.
(See ECF Nos. 104, 84, 53.) Magistrate Judge
Hluchaniuk denied Plaintiff's two previous attempts to
amend his complaint in an order entered December 18, 2014.
(ECF No. 86.) Magistrate Judge Hluchaniuk reasoned that
Plaintiff failed to “comply with [Eastern District of
Michigan] Local Rule 15.1[, ] which requires that ‘any
amendment to a pleading, whether filed as a matter of course
or upon a motion to amend, must … reproduce the entire
pleading as amended, and may not incorporate any prior
pleading by reference.' ” (Id., quoting
E.D. Mich. LR 15.1.) Magistrate Judge Hluchaniuk cautioned
Plaintiff that any future motion to amend must comply with
certain Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, several of which he
specifically explained to Plaintiff. (Id.) The
magistrate judge also set a January 5, 2015 deadline for
Plaintiff to file any motion to amend. (Id.)
Judge Hluchaniuk relied on the same reasons for denying
Plaintiff's third request to amend his complaint in his
October 26, 2015 order. (ECF No. 134 at 1.) Specifically,
Magistrate Judge Hluchaniuk explained to Plaintiff again that
he failed to produce the entire pleading in his proposed
amended complaint. (Id.) Instead, he seemed to ask
the court to piece together his various filings. Magistrate
Judge Hluchaniuk also denied Plaintiff's request because
it was submitted after the January 5, 2015 deadline.
(Id. at 2, quoting ECF No. 86.)
in early December 2015 and on November 17, 2016, Plaintiff
filed additional motions to amend his complaint and proposed
amended pleadings. (ECF No. 143, 148, 144, 182, 183.) In
text-only orders entered May 18 and December 9, 2016,
Magistrate Judge Davis denied Plaintiffs' requests and
struck his proposed amended pleadings. Plaintiff filed his
first objection to Magistrate Judge Davis' decision not
to allow an amended complaint on January 3, 2017. (ECF No.
187.) He filed additional objections on January 9, 2017, and
exhibits in support of his objection on January 19, 2017.
(ECF No. 189, 190.)
party objects to a magistrate judge's non-dispositive
decision, the reviewing court must affirm the magistrate
judge's ruling unless the objecting party demonstrates
that it is “clearly erroneous” or “contrary
to law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a); 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(A). The “clearly erroneous” standard
does not empower a reviewing court to reverse a magistrate
judge's finding because it would have decided the matter
differently. See, e.g., Anderson v. Bessemer City,
N.C. , 470 U.S. 564, 573-74 (1985). Instead, the
“clearly erroneous” standard is met when despite
the existence of evidence to support the finding, the court,
upon reviewing the record in its entirety, “is left
with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been
committed.” Id. (quoting United States v.
U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)).
fails to demonstrate that Magistrate Judge Davis clearly
erred in denying his requests for leave to amend the
complaint. Contrary to Plaintiff's assertion, Magistrate
Judge Davis did provide reasons for her decisions. Each
text-only order referred to Magistrate Judge Hluchaniuk's
October 26, 2015 order, and Magistrate Judge Hluchaniuk
expressly stated the reasons for his decision in that order
(as set forth above). As both magistrate judges correctly
found, Plaintiff has not complied with the applicable federal
rules in seeking leave to amend his complaint, despite having
those rules expressly set forth for him.
this Court is rejecting Plaintiff's objections to the
magistrate judge's decision denying him leave to amend
his complaint and striking his proposed pleadings. Magistrate
Judge Davis' decisions are AFFIRMED.
 The matter was reassigned to
Magistrate Judge Davis on January 5, 2016, following
Magistrate Judge ...