Donald C. Seals, Jr. v. State of Nebraska-Department of Health and Human Services

• Court: District Court, D. Nebraska
• Decided: October 20, 2025
• Docket: 8:23-cv-00489
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

DONALD C. SEALS, JR.,

Plaintiff, 8:23CV489

v. ORDER STATE OF NEBRASKA-DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,

Defendant.

Plaintiff Donald C. Seals, Jr.’s (“Seals”) moved for leave to amend his complaint (Filing No. 21) which the magistrate judge1 recommended the Court deny because the proposed amendments would be futile (Filing No. 36). On June 14, 2025, Seals timely objected (Filing No. 37) to the magistrate judge’s Findings and Recommendation. See NECivR 72.2(a) (noting a party may object “within 14 days after being served with the [magistrate judge’s] order or findings and recommendations”). The Court then conducted a de novo review of the matter and agreed that Seals’s proposed amendments were futile for the same reasons described by the magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (providing the district judge “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (same); Kale v. Aero Simulation, Inc., 139 F.4th 684, 690 (8th Cir. 2025) (stating futility is an appropriate basis for denying a motion to file a request for leave to amend). Therefore, the Court overruled Seals’s objections and accepted the magistrate judge’s Findings and Recommendation (Filing No. 44). Now before the Court is Seals’s attempt to make new objections (Filing No. 55) to the same Findings and Recommendation (Filing No. 36). Seals filed these objections on

1The Honorable Jacqueline M. DeLuca, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Nebraska. September 26, 2025. Because they were filed long after the 14-day deadline had passed, these objections are not timely. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 (permitting a party to object to a magistrate judge’s pretrial ruling or recommendation within fourteen days); Leonard v. Dorsey & Whitney LLP, 553 F.3d 609, 619-20 (8th Cir. 2009) (“[T]he failure to file objections eliminates not only the need for de novo review, but any review by the district court.”). For these reasons, Plaintiff Donald C. Seals, Jr.’s second round of objections (Filing No. 55) to the magistrate judge’s Findings and Recommendation (Filing No. 36) is overruled.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated this 20th day of October 2025. BY THE COURT:

Robert F. Rossiter, Jr. Chief United States District Judge