MARCIA KRIEGER, District Judge
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on a Recommendation (#108) by the Magistrate Judge with regard to the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend (#78). The deadline for filing an objection has not yet passed. However, in light of this ruling, the Court deems there to be no need for Objections. Having considered the same, the Court
FINDS and CONCLUDES that:
On September 26, 2007, the Court issued an Order (#71) granting motions to dismiss all of the Plaintiff's federal claims, and declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. The Court dismissed the Plaintiff's federal claims because his factual allegations that backdating of stock options occurred were insufficiently specific. However, the Court authorized the Plaintiff to file a Second Amended Complaint. Unfortunately, the Order prescribed the filing of a motion to amend as the procedural mechanism for doing so. This resulted in protracted controversy between the parties before the Magistrate Judge, and a thoughtful and carefully reasoned Recommendation (#108).
The Court anticipated and expressly authorized the filing of a Second Amended Complaint.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is appreciated, but declined. Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend (#78) is GRANTED.