IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
February 11, 2009
RORY M. WALSH, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NATURAL GUARDIAN OF C.R.W., PLAINTIFF
DR. ROBERT KRANTZ, ET AL., DEFENDANTS
The opinion of the court was delivered by: (Judge Conner)
AND NOW, this 11th day of February, 2009, upon consideration of pro se plaintiff's appeal (Doc. 122) from the magistrate judge's order (Doc. 121) of January 20, 2009, denying plaintiff's motion for leave to file a second amended complaint, (see Doc. 89), and it appearing that plaintiff sought to supplement his complaint by adding a substantive due process claim*fn1 (see id.), that the magistrate judge determined that leave to amend was futile*fn2 (see Doc. 121), and that plaintiff requests that this court "vacate Magistrate Smyser's order in its entirety and allow Plaintiff to [amend his complaint]" (Doc. 123 at 8), and it further appearing that Magistrate Judge Smyser carefully analyzed plaintiff's arguments,*fn3 and that the January 20, 2009 order (Doc. 121) was not "clearly erroneous or contrary to law," see L.R. 72.2; see also FED. R. CIV. P. 72(a) (stating that a district judge must "set aside" a magistrate judge's ruling on a non-dispositive matter when it is "clearly erroneous or contrary to law"), it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff's appeal (Doc. 122) from the magistrate judge's order (Doc. 121) of January 20, 2009 is DENIED.
CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER United States District Judge