RULING AND ORDER

JAMES D. CAIN, JR., District Judge.

Before the Court is "Objections to and Appeal of Electronic Order [76] Denying [70] Motion for Default Judgment #4, and Motion for Default Judgment #4." (Doc. 80) In his appeal of the Magistrate Judge's order denying the motion for default, Havlik complains that the United States has not answered the Amended Complaint and requests that a default judgment be rendered in his favor for a total of $2,750,000.00.

The Court has reviewed the record and notes that Havlik has filed numerous unnecessary motions and appeals. Even though Havlik is correct in that the United States did not timely file an answer to the amended complaint, the record reveals that on July 12, 2019, an Answer was filed into the record. (Doc. 96) Furthermore, shortly after Havlik filed the Amended Complaint, a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 59) was issued by the Magistrate Judge recommending that the individual defendants that Havlik named in the Amended Complaint be dismissed. The Court adopted that Judgment and dismissed the individual defendants. (Doc. 73).

The district court has authority to review a magistrate judge's decision on a non-dispositive pre-trial motion and to reverse that decision if it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Castillo v. Frank, 70 F.3d 382, 385 (5th Cir. 1995). The Court finds no basis in law to reverse the Magistrate Judge's Order denying the motion for default. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the appeal of the Magistrate Judge's Order (Doc. 80) is hereby DENIED.

THUS DONE AND SIGNED.