DECISION AND ORDER
DAVID G. LARIMER, District Judge.
Pretrial motions were referred to United States Magistrate Judge Jonathan W. Feldman pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (Dkt. #61) recommending that this Court deny plaintiff's motion to file a second amended complaint. No objections of any kind were filed to that Report and Recommendation and, therefore, on October 18, 2012, this Court issued an Order (Dkt. #62) accepting the Report and Recommendation and denying plaintiff's motion to file a second amended complaint.
Plaintiff now moves (Dkt. #67) - almost a year after the Court's decision and order - to reconsider that order denying plaintiff's motion to file a second amended complaint.
The motion is untimely and, for that reason alone, I would deny the motion. Rule 7(d)(3), Local Rules of Civil Procedure. The procedure for challenging a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation is to file objections to that Report. No objections were filed.
But, in spite of the procedural flaw, I have considered the merits. I see no basis whatsoever to reconsider my prior decision which adopted the Magistrate Judge's recommendation that there is no basis to file a second amended complaint.
This case was transferred to United States District Judge Frank P. Geraci, Jr, when he joined the Court. Therefore, any successive motion to file a second amended complaint needs to be addressed to Judge Geraci.
Plaintiff's motion for this Court to reconsider its Decision of October 18, 2012 denying plaintiff's motion to file a second amended complaint is in all respects denied. Any new, successive motion for similar ...