Per Curiam.
___________
Martin
Appellant
Edward
Bauermeister
for
K.
Wojnar
injuries
sued
appellee
Dr.
Wojnar
allegedly
Island Adult
jury
Correctional Institutions.
After
a trial, the
asserted,
evidence
did
and
the
district court
Dr. Bauermeister
agreed,
that
such
not state
a claim
for negligence.
Rather,
the court
Wojnar's medical
needs in violation
Constitution.
of the
Wojnar
Wojnar
argues
that
Judge
Torres'
ruling
to file a
second amended
____________________
1. The second amended complaint set forth allegations of
negligence.
However, the denial of the motion to amend is
not before us, Wojnar having failed to object within the 10day time period set forth in 28 U.S.C.
636(b)(1)(A). See
___
United States v. Akinola, 985 F.2d 1105, 1108-09 (1st Cir.
_____________
_______
1993) (where a party does not object to a magistrate judge's
order, the court of appeals has no jurisdiction to review
it).
-2-
that a
to amend
prejudiced.
more reasonable
Such
Dr. Bauermeister
finding
made
sense,
been
Judge
Torres
second
Wojnar ignores
the magistrate
judge's
the close
relied on this
would have
of discovery.
"undue delay" to
been prejudiced
amended
pleadings
claims."
Given
with
the
The
if Wojnar
"more
magistrate judge
Bauermeister
were allowed
substantial
equivocal language
or
in the
to file
different
magistrate
an abuse
of discretion.
See
___
Workers v. Procter & Gamble Mfg. Co., 864 F.2d 927, 929 (1st
_______
__________________________
Cir.
1988) (abuse
court
"makes a
of
discretion occurs
serious mistake"
when the
in evaluating
district
the factors
relative to a decision).
Wojnar further argues that Judge Torres ignored the
magistrate judge's
that Dr.
recommendation, made in
the same
order,
to dismiss the
-3-
amended
complaint
magistrate
Wojnar's
judge
be
denied.
based this
supplemental
interrogatories
put the
Wojnar
suggestion
answers
to
latter on
avers
on
that
the view
Dr.
the
that
Bauermeister's
notice that
the amended
this ruling.
the magistrate
based
allegation
on
the
sufficiently
detailed
interrogatories.
Fed.
R.
Civ.
had
to
Dr.
37(b)(2)(C),
not
appears that
that Wojnar
answers
It
Rule
failed
to file
Bauermeister's
this motion
under
12(b)(6).
The
magistrate
answers
judge
(filed
determined
after
the
that
Rule
Wojnar's
37
supplemental
motion)
"provide[d]
not warranted.
He did not, as
a similar
argument in regard
to the
responses
to
after Wojnar
Wojnar's
interrogatories be
postponed
until
him.
stated
motion
-4-
the
claim
amended complaint
adequately gives
against defendant."
fair notice
Again, there is
of the
nothing in this
the question
complaint
malpractice.
U.S.C.
adequate
his
1983
for, among
medical care."
reference
sentence.
Even
tort
claim
for
other
sought pursuant to
acts, the
"denial
of
to base this
the
Eighth
Amendment
sentence of this
"also
include
not
complaint states
42
did
paragraph.
the
same
is the concluding
In it, Wojnar
in
states that
he
pendent jurisdiction."
Wojnar next
points
stated
Wojnar argues
that
to
was a
"medical
-5-
statement by
the
magistrate judge
it
(who impanelled
malpractice
indicates the
the
case."
magistrate
magistrate judge
informed
by
made
counsel of
this observation.
his intent
to
After
file the
being
motion in
shows
that
the
magistrate judge
believed
At most,
that
the
on notice
as early
as March
points
to
Bauermeister on
that
or
4, 1994
In
by
Dr.
acts committed
avers
by Dr.
that Dr.
in limine, that he
had
was
Bauermeister asked
Wojnar also
propounded
it, Dr.
the "negligent"
his agents.
that Wojnar
interrogatory
this date.
Wojnar specify
Bauermeister
an
answers to Dr.
Bauermeister's
that
the
one party
ambit
of
propounds interrogatories
the
complaint"
cannot
add
"fairly
to
the
We agree with
-6-
acquiesce
in the
as the
new
claims by
be said
filing a
as well as
motions to
to parties harmed by
1991) (standard
of
review for
decision
to
We therefore
court.
affirm the
______
-7-
judgment of
the district