Smith v. Tishman

Opinion

DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOC #:

Stewart M. Smith, Plaintiff, 1:21-cv-02915 (PGG) (SDA) -against- ORDER AECOM Tishman et al., Defendants.

STEWART D. AARON, United States Magistrate Judge: WHEREAS, on June 15, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend the Complaint, which included a proposed Amended Complaint (see Mot. to Amend, ECF No. 58); and WHEREAS, on July 31, 2023, Defendants filed a response to Plaintiff's motion, which actually is an Answer to Plaintiff's proposed Amended Complaint (see Response, ECF No. 62). NOW, THEREFORE, IT 1S HEREBY ORDERED THAT Plaintiff's motion to amend is GRANTED.? The Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to file ECF No. 58 as a new docket entry titled Amended Complaint? and to file ECF No. 62 as a subsequent docket entry titled Answer. SO ORDERED. Dated: New York, New York August 1, 2023

STEWART D. AARON United States Magistrate Judge

A magistrate judge’s grant of a motion to amend a complaint is generally considered non-dispositive. See Antipova v. Caremount Med. P.C., No. 21-CV-07453 (JPC) (BCM), 2022 WL 17820862, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. June 16, 2022) (citing cases). * The Court agrees with Defendants that the “timeline” portion of ECF No. 51 is not part of the Amended Complaint, which begins following the heading “Exhibit A.” (See ECF No. 51 at 1-2.)