Binns et al v. Travelers Indemnity Co of Connecticut et al

Filing 37

MEMORANDUM ORDER re 30 APPEAL OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION to District Judge re 28 Order on Motion to Amend/Correct filed by Melba Binns, Frederick Binns. Plaintiff's Appeal 30 is DENIED, and the Magistrate Judge's Memorandum Ruling 28 is AFFIRMED. Signed by Judge Robert G James on 3/17/15. (crt,DickersonSld, D)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MONROE DIVISION

MELBA BINNS, ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-0388

VERSUS

JUDGE ROBERT G. JAMES

THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY MAG. JUDGE JAMES D. KIRK
OF CONNECTICUT, ET AL.

MEMORANDUM ORDER
On February 6, 2015, Magistrate Judge James D. Kirk issued a Memorandum Ruling
[Doc. No. 28] denying Plaintiffs’ “Motion for Leave of Court to File First Amended,
Supplemental and Restated Complaint and to Add Additional Parties in Accordance with the
Court’s Scheduling Order and Which Gives Rise to 28 USC § 1447(e) Issues to the Court”
(“Motion to Amend Complaint”) [Doc. No. 17].
Pending before the Court is “Plaintiffs’ Written Statement of Appeal and Objection to
Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum Ruling” (“Appeal”) [Doc. No. 30], which the Court considers
to be an appeal in accordance with FED . R. CIV . P. 72(a) and L.R. 74.1W. On March 12, 2015,
Defendants filed an Opposition [Doc. No. 36].1
Motions to amend are non-dispositive pre-trial matters. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A)
and Rule 72(a), the Court reviews a magistrate judge’s rulings on non-dispositive matters only to
determine whether they are clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

1

Although the deadline for filing a reply memorandum has not passed, the parties have
fully briefed the issues in this matter twice. Therefore, in the interest of judicial economy, the
Court will proceed with ruling on the appeal at this time.

Having conducted a thorough review of the entire record, the Court finds that, under the
facts and circumstances of this case, the Magistrate Judge’s order was not clearly erroneous nor
contrary to law. Specifically, the Court finds that Magistrate Judge Kirk’s determinations of law
were not clear error when he denied Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend Complaint. Therefore,
Plaintiffs’ Appeal [Doc. No. 30] is DENIED, and the Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum Ruling
[Doc. No. 28] is AFFIRMED.
MONROE, LOUISIANA, this 17th day of March, 2015.

2