Muhammad v. Lovin et al
ORDER ADOPTING 29 Partial Report and Recommendations denying 33 Motion to Amend/Correct; denying 35 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 5/16/12. (kpr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TOMMIE G. LOVIN, Jail Administrator,
Monroe County Jail; EDNA SMITH, Cook,
Monroe County Jail; C. MURPHY, Captain,
Monroe County Jail; and DONNA SMITH,
Jailer, Monroe County Jail
Muhammad has not objected to Magistrate Judge Beth Deere's
recommendation, Document No. 29, that his second motion to amend his
complaint be denied. He has, however, filed a motion to extend his time to
object. Document No. 35. The Court has already ruled that Muhammad can't
add the claims at issue because he cannot have exhausted them before filing
this lawsuit. And the parties recently consented to have Judge Deere handle
this case to judgment.
Under the circumstances the Court denies
Muhammad's motion to extend time. The Court will, however, review Judge
Deere's recommendation de novo in light of his intention to object.
FED. R. CIV.
P. 72(b) (1983 addition to Advisory Committee notes). On de novo review, the
Court adopts Judge Deere's proposal as its own.
Muhammad's third motion to amend, Document No. 33, is also denied.
Muhammad seeks to add a claim for deliberate indifference. The Court
assumes this is related to his allegations that the jail served him spoiled tuna
fish. But twice now the Court has denied him leave to add those claims.
Muhammad's allegations in his original complaint, Document No.2, could not
support a claim for deliberate indifference. The Court declines to allow this
futile amendment. Holloway v. Dobbs, 715 F.2d 390,392-93 (8th Cir. 1983) (per
Partial report and recommendations, Document No. 29, adopted in full.
Motions, Document Nos. 20, 33 & 35, denied.
D.P. Marshall Jr.
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?