LARRY R. HICKS, District Judge.
Before the court is Plaintiff Michelle Ann Ashcraft's Objection to Magistrate Judge's Order (#28
Plaintiff objects the Magistrate Judge's Order (#27) of March 21, 2012, denying Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Defendant's Opposition to Motion to Amend Complaint (#23), and denying Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint (#19) as futile. The substance of the objection is limited, however, to the Magistrate Judge's ruling on the motion to strike. Plaintiff contends the Magistrate Judge erred in rejecting Plaintiff's argument that Defendant's opposition to her motion to amend was actually, and should be construed as, a motion to dismiss brought on behalf of the three individual defendants that Plaintiff sought to add through her amended complaint.
"A district judge may reconsider any pretrial matter referred to a magistrate judge in a civil or criminal case pursuant to LR IB 1-3, where it has been shown that the magistrate judge's ruling is clearly erroneous or contrary to law." LR IB 3-1(a). Here, the Magistrate Judge specifically considered and rejected each of Plaintiff's arguments, and Plaintiff's objection merely repeats those arguments while entirely failing to address the Magistrate Judge's analysis. Moreover, having considered the Magistrate Judge's thorough analysis, the court finds nothing that is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's Objection to Magistrate Judge's Order (#28) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.