Opinion ID: 18026
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Proper Defendant

Text: 22 The magistrate determined that Parkwood could not be sued because Parkwood is not a legal entity, but is instead merely the name of the hospital in question, which is owned by Magellan, Inc. (Magellan), and Magellan is not named as a defendant in the suit. 6 In timely objections to the magistrate judge's report, Bass, inter alia, noted this aspect of the magistrate judge's ruling and also requested that the district court [a]llow plaintiff ... leave to amend his complaint. 23 While the grant or denial of leave to amend pleadings is committed to the sound discretion of the district court, that discretion is tempered by the rule's requirement that leave shall be freely given when justice so requires. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a); Jacobsen v. Osborne, 133 F.3d 315, 318 (5th Cir.1998). The suit was dismissed before any defendants answered or were served, so no party would have been prejudiced by allowing amendment to name Parkwood's owner. 7 Further considering the pro se nature of Bass's complaint, the district court abused its discretion by dismissing with prejudice Bass's claims on this basis without affording him an opportunity to amend to name Parkwood's owner as a defendant. 8