KING v. MAINE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

Filing 46

ORDER ON DEFENDANTS OBJECTION TO MEMORANDUM OF DECISION re 42 Objection. By JUDGE JON D. LEVY. (CLC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
KRISTIN A. KING,
Plaintiff,
v.
MAINE DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
) Case No. 1:13-cv-00163-JDL
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S OBJECTION TO MEMORANDUM OF
DECISION
Plaintiff Kristin A. King has moved to amend the complaint in her employment
discrimination suit against the Maine Department of Corrections, seeking to join
David Garrison as a defendant and to add additional claims. See ECF No. 34. The
Department of Corrections objected, ECF No. 36, and the motion was referred to
Magistrate Judge John Nivison.

On May 5, the Magistrate Judge entered a

Memorandum of Decision granting King’s motion to amend. ECF No. 40. The
Department of Corrections objected again. ECF No. 42.
A magistrate judge’s decision on a nondispositive pretrial matter is subject to
correction by a judge of the district court only if it is “clearly erroneous or is contrary
to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). See also Pagano v. Frank, 983
F.2d 343, 346 (1st Cir. 1993) (treating motion to amend as nondispositive). This
deferential standard means a district court must accept a magistrate judge’s
conclusions unless it has “a strong, unyielding belief that a mistake has been made.”
United States v. Stone, 824 F. Supp. 2d 176, 185 (D. Me. 2011) (citing Phinney v.

Wentworth Douglas Hosp., 199 F.3d 1, 4 (1st Cir. 1999)). After carefully reviewing
the relevant materials, I have no such belief. The objection to the Memorandum of
Decision is hereby OVERRULED.
SO ORDERED.
/s/Jon D.Levy___________
United States District Judge
Dated this 4th day of June, 2015.