United States District Court, D. Maine
June 4, 2015
KRISTIN A. KING, Plaintiff,
MAINE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants.
ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S OBJECTION TO MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
Jon D. Levy United States District Judge
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.