Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Everett v. Cherry

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureAmendment of pleadingsRelation backMagistrate judge reviewStatute of limitationsFed. R. Civ. P. 72(a)Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c)(1)(C)28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A)

Facts

The complaint alleged that defendants caused Sandra M. Kenley to receive inadequate medical care while incarcerated in November and December 2005, resulting in her death on December 18, 2005. The plaintiff originally sued other defendants, but on July 24, 2009 sought leave to amend to add Prison Health Services (PHS), alleging that PHS provided inadequate medical treatment while Kenley was housed at HRRJ. By that time, the applicable two-year limitations period had expired, so the claim against PHS could proceed only if the amendment related back to the original filing. PHS had not been served with notice of any potential claim during the first three and a half years after Kenley's death, and the only claimed prior notice was a newspaper article read in January 2008.

Issue

Whether the magistrate judge clearly erred or acted contrary to law in denying leave to amend the complaint to add PHS after the statute of limitations had expired. More specifically, the question was whether the proposed amendment satisfied Rule 15(c)(1)(C)'s relation-back requirements for adding a new party.

Rule

A district court will not disturb a magistrate judge's ruling on a non-dispositive pretrial matter unless it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. When an amendment changes the party against whom a claim is asserted after the statute of limitations has run, the amendment relates back under Rule 15(c)(1)(C) only if, within the Rule 4(m) period, the party to be added received notice of the action such that it will not be prejudiced in defending on the merits and knew or should have known that the action would have been brought against it but for a mistake concerning the proper party's identity.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a federal civil rights suit pending in Richmond, a magistrate judge denied Maya Ortiz's motion for leave to amend to add a new defendant after the limitations period had expired. Maya objected to the district judge, arguing that because the ruling effectively prevented any recovery against the proposed defendant, the judge must review the order de novo.

What is the proper standard of review for the district judge?

Explanation. Under the majority opinion, a magistrate judge's denial of leave to amend to add a new defendant is treated as a non-dispositive pretrial ruling. Therefore, objections are reviewed under Rule 72(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) for clear error or whether the order is contrary to law, not de novo merely because the ruling forecloses a claim against the proposed party.