John O. Murrin, III, et al v. Avidigm Capital Group, Inc., et al

Filing

PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: KERMIT E. BYE, MORRIS S. ARNOLD and BOBBY E. SHEPHERD (UNPUBLISHED) [3807495] [10-2030]

United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________
No. 10-2030
___________
John O. Murrin, III;
DeVonna K. Murrin,
husband and wife,
Appellants,
v.
Avidigm Capital Group, Inc,;
Steven J. Mattson,
Appellees.

*
*
*
*
*
* Appeal from the United States
* District Court for the
* District of Minnesota.
*
*
[UNPUBLISHED]
*
*
___________

Submitted: July 7, 2011
Filed: July 14, 2011
___________
Before BYE, ARNOLD, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.

John O Murrin, III and DeVonna K. Murrin (the Murrins) appeal following the
district court’s1 order partially granting default judgment against Avidigm Capital
Group, Inc. (Avidigm) and its president Steven J. Mattson, and entering final

1

The Honorable Patrick J. Schiltz, United States District Judge for the District
of Minnesota.

Appellate Case: 10-2030

Page: 1

Date Filed: 07/14/2011 Entry ID: 3807495

judgment, in this case removed from state court. The sole issue on appeal is whether
the district court erred by overruling the Murrins’ objections to the magistrate
judge’s2 order denying leave to amend to add claims under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(c)-(d)
of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act against Avidigm and
Mattson after dismissal of all claims against all other defendants.
Contrary to the Murrins’ assertion, we find that their motion for leave to file
a fifth amended complaint was properly referred to the magistrate judge for
disposition, and that in reviewing the Murrins’ objections to the magistrate judge’s
ruling, the district court judge properly considered whether the ruling was clearly
erroneous or contrary to law. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). As to the denial of leave
to amend to add section 1962(c)-(d) claims against Mattson and Avidigm, we find no
basis for reversal. See Zutz v. Nelson, 601 F.3d 842, 850-51 (8th Cir.) (standard of
review), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 524 (2010) Finally, we reject as meritless the
Murrins’ suggestion that they were entitled to yet another opportunity to amend.3
Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
______________________________

2

The Honorable Raymond L. Erickson, United States Magistrate Judge for the
District of Minnesota.
3

We decline to address those arguments that the Murrins raise for the first time
on appeal. See Campbell v. Davol, Inc., 620 F.3d 887, 891 (8th Cir. 2010).
-2-

Appellate Case: 10-2030

Page: 2

Date Filed: 07/14/2011 Entry ID: 3807495