McAfee v. IC System, Inc.

• Court: District Court, S.D. Ohio
• Decided: January 8, 2025
• Docket: 1:24-cv-00474
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

BRANDEN MCAFEE,

Plaintiff, Case No. 1:24-cv-474 v. JUDGE DOUGLAS R. COLE IC SYSTEM, INC., Magistrate Judge Bowman

Defendant. ORDER Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Bowman’s Report and Recommendation (R&R, Doc. 26),1 advising the Court to deny Plaintiff Branden McAfee’s Motion for Leave to File His First Amended Complaint (Doc. 25). Specifically, the R&R highlights that the Court, in a previous Opinion and Order, dismissed McAfee’s Complaint. (Doc. 26, #175; see also Doc. 23 (dismissing McAfee’s Complaint)). In light of McAfee’s case being closed, (see Doc. 24), the Magistrate Judge concluded that McAfee’s motion was an untimely and procedurally improper post-judgment motion, as the time to move for leave to file an amended complaint had passed. (Doc. 26, #175– 76). The Court agrees that McAfee’s motion to amend is procedurally improper. “Following entry of final judgment, a party may not seek to amend their complaint

1 In her R&R, Magistrate Judge Bowman noted that while Magistrate Judges ordinarily handle non-dispositive motions (like the motion for leave to amend at issue here) by Order without issuing an R&R, they have limited authority to rule on post-judgment motions. (Doc. 26, #175 n.1). Given that limitation, Magistrate Judge Bowman ruled on McAfee’s post- judgment motion to amend by R&R (rather than by Order) out of an “abundance of caution.” (Id.). without first moving to alter, set aside or vacate judgment pursuant to either Rule 59 or Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” In re Ferro Corp. Derivative Litig., 511 F.3d 611, 624 (6th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted); see also Vontz v. Rochowiak, No. 2:20-ev-11339, 2020 WL 4431419, at *1 (E.D. Mich. July 31, 2020). McAfee made no such motion here.? The Court therefore lacks the power to grant McAfee’s motion to amend his Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a). In re Ferro Corp., 511 F.3d at 624. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the R&R (Doc. 26) and DENIES McAfee’s Motion for Leave to File His First Amended Complaint (Doc. 25). This case remains closed. SO ORDERED.

January 8, 2025 DATE DOUGLAS R. COLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2 What’s more, McAfee has already refiled his lawsuit under a new case number. (See Compl., McAfee v. IC Sys., Inc., No. 1:24-ev-715 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 13, 2024), Doc. 1).