PHILO v. REAMS, et al

Filing 49

ORDER AFFIRMING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S RULING re 46 Order. Signed by SENIOR JUDGE STEPHAN P MICKLE on 9/20/2012. (jws)

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
GAINESVILLE DIVISION
RONDY ALEXIS PHILO,
Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO.: 4:11cv394-SPM/GRJ

ROBERT REAMS. et al.
Defendants.
________________________/
ORDER AFFIRMING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RULING
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Rondy Alexis Philo’s Objections to the
magistrate judge’s non-dispositive order. Doc. 46. The objections are filed under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) and challenge the magistrate judge’s
rulings that denied Plaintiff’s request for leave to amend his complaint and struck
Plaintiff’s reply.
A district court judge may reconsider pretrial matters that have been
referred to a magistrate judge “where it has been shown that the magistrate
judge’s order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(A).
Under this standard, the court will affirm the magistrate judge’s order unless the
court has a definite and firm conviction that error has occurred. See Linea Navira
De Cabotaje, C.A. v. Mar Caribe De Navegacion, C.A., 169 F.Supp.2d 1341,
1355 (M.D. Fla. 2001).

Page 2 of 2

Upon review, the Court finds no reason to modify or set aside the
magistrate judge’s order. The magistrate judge had discretion to rule on
Plaintiff’s request for leave to amend under Rule 15(a). Conventry First, LLC v.
McCarty, 605 F.3d 865, 870-71 (11th Cir. 2010). The amendment was properly
denied because it is futile. As explained in the magistrate judge’s order, Plaintiff
is not entitled to monetary relief on his official capacity claims, so there is no
need for him to clarify by amendment specific monetary amounts for his official
capacity claims. Furthermore, contrary to Plaintiff’s suggestion, denying the
amendment does not mean that Plaintiff will be deprived of any monetary relief
on his individual capacity claims if he succeeds in this case. Plaintiff’s original
complaint seeks monetary damages, which he has sufficiently pleaded under the
standards of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(3).
The magistrate judge also acted within the proper scope of his discretion
in striking Plaintiff’s reply. Although pro se pleadings are construed liberally, a pro
se litigant must comply with applicable rules. See Schmitt v. U.S. Office of
Personnel Management, 403 F. App’x 460, 461-61 (11th Cir. 2010). Having
found no error in the magistrate judge’s ruling, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the rulings of the magistrate judge (doc.
46) are affirmed.
DONE AND ORDERED this 20th day of September, 2012.

s/ Stephan P. Mickle

Stephan P. Mickle
Senior United States District Judge
CASE NO.: 4:11cv394-SPM/GRJ