NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

JOAN MULLIN, ADMINISTRATRIX OF 

THE ESTATE OF ROBERT MULLIN, 

deceased, and JOAN MULLIN, 

individually,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, et al.,

 Defendants.

 CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-247 (MLC)

 O P I N I O N

THE PLAINTIFF, Joan Mullin, earlier moved before the 

Magistrate Judge for leave to amend the Complaint to, inter alia, 

add “Officer Dimler” (“Dimler”) and “Beatrice Teel, R.N.” (“Teel”)

as defendants to the action. (See dkt. entry no. 31, Motion for 

Leave to Amend; see also dkt. entry no. 35, Second Motion for Leave

to Amend.) The Magistrate Judge, upon review of both the Motion 

for Leave to Amend and the Second Motion for Leave to Amend (“the 

Motions”), denied the Motions insofar as Mullin thereby sought to 

add Dimler and Teel as defendants to the action. (See generally

dkt. entry 43, 11-28-11 Order.) The Magistrate Judge explained 

that that Mullin failed to set forth sufficient factual allegations 

to support the proposed claims raised against Dimler and Teel.

(See generally id.)

Case 3:11-cv-00247-MLC-LHG Document 94 Filed 08/02/12 Page 1 of 5 PageID: 1246
2

MULLIN timely moved for reconsideration of the 11-28-11 Order.

(See dkt. entry no. 46, Motion for Reconsideration.) The 

Magistrate Judge, upon reconsideration, again concluded that Mullin 

failed to set forth sufficient factual allegations relating to the 

proposed claims raised against Dimler and Teel. (See dkt. entry 

no. 80, 6-19-12 Order at 13-14.) The Magistrate Judge explained 

Mullin failed to set forth “factual assertions [of Dimler and/or 

Teel’s] personal involvement or wrongdoing” in the conduct 

underlying the action, “let alone conduct that led to the 

deprivation of [Robert] Mullin’s constitutional rights”, and thus 

failed to set forth sufficient factual allegations such that the 

proposed claims raised Dimler and Teel were “plausible on [their] 

face”. (Id. at 13.) The Magistrate Judge, concluding that Mullin 

“essentially ask[ed] the Court to take a leap of faith”, thus again 

denied the Motions insofar as they sought to add Dimler and Teel as 

defendants to the action. (See id. at 14, 17.)

THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE, however, denied the Motions without 

prejudice. (See id. at 14.) The Magistrate Judge recognized that 

“discovery may illuminate the circumstances surrounding [Robert] 

Mullin’s death and provide additional information” that might 

support a later motion for leave to amend the Complaint to add 

Dimler and/or Teel as defendants to the action. (Id.)

Case 3:11-cv-00247-MLC-LHG Document 94 Filed 08/02/12 Page 2 of 5 PageID: 1247
3

MULLIN now appeals pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

72 and Local Civil Rule 72.1(c) from the 6-19-12 Order, insofar as 

the Magistrate Judge denied Mullin’s requests to add Dimler and 

Teel as defendants to the action. (See dkt. entry nos. 94-4 & 

94-5, Mullin Appeal Br.) Mullin argues on appeal that the factual 

allegations set forth in the proposed amended complaint

sufficiently support the proposed claims raised against Dimler and 

Teel. (See id.) It appears that the defendants oppose the Appeal.

(See dkt. entry no. 93, Defs.’ Opp’n);1

THE COURT resolves the Appeal without oral argument pursuant 

to Local Civil Rule 78.1(b).

IT APPEARS that a motion for leave to amend a pleading is not 

dispositive, and thus, may be entered by a magistrate judge. See

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). The Court, in reviewing a magistrate 

judge’s order in a non-dispositive matter, including an order 

denying a motion for leave to amend a pleading, may modify, vacate, 

or reverse the order only if it was “clearly erroneous or contrary 

 

1 The Court acknowledges that the opposition papers docketed 

at entry 93 technically relate to a motion pending before the 

Magistrate Judge. The Court notes, however, that the motion 

pending before the Magistrate Judge also seeks to amend the 

Complaint to add Dimler and Teel as defendants to the action.

The defendants, in those opposition papers, state that the 

Magistrate Judge, in the 6-19-12 Order, “properly denied 

plaintiff’s motion to add . . . Dimler and Teel”. (Defs.’ Opp’n at 

2.) The Court accordingly treats those opposition papers as 

relating to the Appeal.

Case 3:11-cv-00247-MLC-LHG Document 94 Filed 08/02/12 Page 3 of 5 PageID: 1248
4

to law”. Cipollone v. Liggett Grp., Inc., 785 F.2d 1108, 1113 (3d 

Cir. 1986); see also Jackson v. Chubb Corp., 45 Fed.Appx. 163, 166 

n.7 (3d Cir. 2002); United States v. Sensient Colors, Inc., 649 

F.Supp.2d 309, 315 n.5 (D.N.J. 2009) (“the clearly erroneous or 

contrary to law standard of review is applicable to a motion to 

amend on appeal from a magistrate [judge’s] decision”). “[A]

finding is clearly erroneous ‘when although there is evidence to 

support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with 

the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been 

committed.’” Schering Corp. v. Mylan Pharms., Inc., No. 09-6383, 

2011 WL 3651343, at *2 (D.N.J. Aug. 18, 2011) (citations omitted).

A ruling is contrary to law if a magistrate judge has 

misinterpreted or misapplied applicable law. See Gunter v. 

Ridgewood Energy Corp., 32 F.Supp.2d 162, 164 (D.N.J. 1998); see 

also Kounelis v. Sherrer, 529 F.Supp.2d 503, 517 (D.N.J. 2008). 

THE COURT has reviewed the Motion for Leave to Amend, the 

Second Motion for Leave to Amend, Mullin’s proposed amended 

complaint, and the 6-19-12 Order. The Court concludes that the 

Magistrate Judge neither committed an abuse of discretion nor an

error of law by denying the Motions, insofar as Mullin therein 

sought to add Dimler and Teel as defendants to this action. The 

few factual allegations set forth in the proposed amended complaint 

that relate to Dimler and Teel, as noted by the Magistrate Judge, 

Case 3:11-cv-00247-MLC-LHG Document 94 Filed 08/02/12 Page 4 of 5 PageID: 1249
5

do not allege “personal involvement or wrongdoing” in the conduct 

underlying the action, “let alone conduct that led to the 

deprivation of [Robert] Mullin’s constitutional rights”. Mullin 

may, pursuant to the 6-19-12 order, move anew for leave to amend 

the Complaint if discovery reveals such facts.

THE COURT will issue an appropriate Order.

 s/ Mary L. Cooper .

MARY L. COOPER

United States District Judge

Dated: August 2, 2012

Case 3:11-cv-00247-MLC-LHG Document 94 Filed 08/02/12 Page 5 of 5 PageID: 1250