WHITNEY v. WETZEL et al
Filing
93
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER denying 91 Appeal of Magistrate Judge Decision to District Court filed by CHARLES WHITNEY. Court staff mailed a copy of this docket entry and the opinion and order to plaintiff at his address of record on this date. Signed by Chief Judge Joy Flowers Conti on 12/4/2014. (ten)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CHARLES WHITNEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN E. WETZEL, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No. 12-cv-01623
MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER
CONTI, Chief District Judge
Before the court is an appeal (ECF No. 91) filed by Plaintiff Charles Whitney
(“Whitney” or “Plaintiff”) requesting review of the magistrate judge’s Memorandum Order dated
October 31, 2014 (ECF No. 88) (the “Order”), denying Whitney’s motion for entry of default. Upon
review of the matters raised by the appeal, the court concludes that the order appealed from is neither
clearly erroneous nor an abuse of discretion.
The Federal Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 631–639, provides two separate standards
for judicial review of a magistrate judge’s decision: (i) “de novo” for magistrate resolution of
dispositive matters, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)-(C), and (ii) “clearly erroneous or contrary to law” for
magistrate resolution of nondispositive matters. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). Accord FED. R. CIV. P.
72(a), (b); Local Civil Rule 72.1(C)(2); see Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 785 F.2d 1108, 1113
(3d Cir. 1986).
In this case, the magistrate judge’s October 31, 2014, Order is nondispositive and will
not be disturbed unless it is found to be clearly erroneous or contrary to law. A finding is clearly
erroneous “when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence
is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Anderson v. City of
Bessemer, 470 U.S. 564, 573 (1985) (citing United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S.
364 (1948)).
Plaintiff argues that the magistrate judge erred when she denied his motion for default
because he “named [defendants Clark and Verner] inside of the civil complaint” and “added the two
defendants Dorina Verner and c/o l Clark to the list of defendants” when Plaintiff sent copies of the
civil complaint to all defendants. (ECF No. 91 at 1.) As the magistrate judge correctly noted,
however, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(a) and Local Rule of Civil Procedure 10 require that
each defendant be named in the title or caption of the complaint. (ECF No. 88 at 1.) A review of the
record reflects that neither “Dorina Verner” nor “c/o l Clark” are named as defendants in this
manner. (ECF No. 7 at 1, 2.) Plaintiff’s contention that he referred to these individuals within the
body of the complaint, and added them to an unspecified “list of defendants” cannot cure this defect.
The magistrate judge’s decision to deny Plaintiff’s motion for default was not clearly erroneous or
contrary to law under the circumstances.
If “c/o l Clark” is not the Lt. Clark who has appeared and responded to Plaintiff’s
complaint, (ECF Nos. 26, 29, 42, and 73), and with respect to “Dorina Verner” in any event, Plaintiff
must seek leave to amend the caption of his previously-filed complaint, or to file an amended
complaint. Should the magistrate judge grant Plaintiff leave to do so, following the filing of the
appropriate amended documents, Plaintiff would need to complete the required service forms as
directed by the magistrate judge in order to effectuate service on any newly named defendant.
2
For the reasons stated above, the court finds that Whitney did not show that the magistrate
judge’s ruling was clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
Accordingly, this 4th day of December, 2014, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s
appeal (ECF No. 91) is DENIED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Joy Flowers Conti__________________
Joy Flowers Conti
Chief United States District Judge
cc:
All counsel of record via CM/ECF notification system
CHARLES WHITNEY
DM 3996
SCI Benner
301 Institution Drive
Bellefonte, PA 16823
3
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?