McAfee v. IC System, Inc.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

BRANDEN MCAFEE, Case No. 1:24-cv-474

Plaintiff, Cole, J. Bowman, M.J. v.

IC SYSTEM, INC.,

Defendant

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION1

Pro se Plaintiff Branden McAfee, a frequent litigant in this Court,2 paid the requisite filing fee and initiated this Fair Debt Collection Act case on September 3, 2024. On October 10, 2024, Defendant moved for judgment on the pleadings. (Doc. 12). Despite filing numerous other motions, including a motion that sought an expedited ruling on the Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings, Plaintiff filed no memorandum in opposition to Defendant’s motion. The presiding district judge, noting that the dispositive motion was unopposed, granted it on December 9, 2024. Judgment was entered the same day. (See Docs. 23, 24). Three days after this case was dismissed from the Court’s docket, Plaintiff filed what he has captioned a motion for leave to file an amended complaint under Rule 15(a). But the time for filing an amended complaint passed long ago. Once judgment has been entered and a case has been closed, no “amended complaint” can be filed.

1A motion to amend a complaint is ordinarily a non-dispositive motion that can be addressed by Order. However, due to the limitations of magistrate authority in ruling on post-judgment motions, and out of an abundance of caution, the undersigned rules on the instant motion by Report and Recommendation. 2See, e.g., Nos. 1:22-cv-110-SJD-SKB, 1:22-cv-216-MRB-KLL, 1:23-cv-351-DRC-KLL, 1:23-cv-444-JPH- KLL, 1:23-cv-586-JPH-SKB, 1:23-cv-811-DRC-SKB, 1:24-cv-168-MRB-SKB. IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT Plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint be DENIED as an untimely and procedurally improper post-judgment motion.

_s/Stephanie K. Bowman _______ Stephanie K. Bowman United States Magistrate Judge UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

NOTICE Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P 72(b), any party may serve and file specific, written objections to this Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS of the filing date of this R&R. That period may be extended further by the Court on timely motion by either side for an extension of time. All objections shall specify the portion(s) of the R&R objected to, and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of the objections. A party shall respond to an opponent’s objections within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS after being served with a copy of those objections. Failure to make objections in accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).