Filing 91

ORDER denying 89 Motion Objecting to Magistrate Judge's Order on Motion to Amend. Accordingly, the Magistrate Judges September 21, 2010 Order is affirmed, and Plaintiffs objection to it is overruled (S.O.). Signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 10/25/2010. (MAC)

Download PDF
MATHEWS v. BRONGER MASONRY, INC. Doc. 91 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION PENNY MATHEWS, Plaintiff, vs. BRONGER MASONRY, INC., Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1:09-cv-478-SEB-DML ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTION TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S ORDER ON MOTION TO AMEND The Court has considered Plaintiff's Objection to the September 21, 2010 Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend, filed at Docket No. 83, and being duly advised in the premises, now OVERRULES that objection. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(A) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), the Court reviews the Magistrate Judge's ruling to determine whether it was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. In the situation at bar, the Magistrate Judge's decision is well considered, analyzes and applies the relevant case law, and clearly sets forth the reasons for her ruling. Upon review, we find that the Magistrate Judge's ruling is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge's September 21, 2010 Order is affirmed, and Plaintiff's objection to it is overruled. IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: ____10/__/20_____________ __ 25__ 10 _______________________________ SARAH EVANS BARKER, JUDGE United States District Court Southern District of Indiana Copies to: Michael L. Einterz Jr. EINTERZ & EINTERZ Michael L. Einterz Sr. EINTERZ & EINTERZ Ronald E. Weldy WELDY & ASSOCIATES 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?