Ybanez v. Scott, et al
Filing
51
MINUTE ORDER denying without prejudice 47 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend Pleadings, by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 10/29/2014.(emill)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 14-cv-01059-MSK-MJW
NATHAN YBANEZ,
Plaintiff,
v.
BERNADETTE SCOTT, in her individual and official capacities as Lieutenant of the SCF
Mail Room, and
UNKNOWN SCF MAIL ROOM EMPLOYEE “C. Mathis,” in her individual capacity,
Defendants.
MINUTE ORDER
Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe
It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend Pleadings
(Docket No. 47) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
On October 14, 2014, the Court entered a report and recommendation,
recommending that Defendant Mathis be dismissed from this case for lack of service
and lack of prosecution. (Docket No. 41.) On October 22, 2014, Plaintiff filed an
objection to that report and recommendation, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
72(b)(2). (Docket No. 49.) The Court notes that, to date, Plaintiff has still not filed any
proof of service on Defendant Mathis, and that none of Plaintiff’s filings set forth any
affirmative steps taken by Plaintiff to effect service.
On October 16, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend his complaint. (Docket
No. 47.) The sole purpose of the motion is to identify Defendant Mathis with greater
specificity. The grounds for this motion are generally proper--but the matter will be
entirely moot should Chief Judge Krieger adopt the report and recommendation
dismissing Defendant Mathis from the case.
Thus, the Court denies the motion as currently premature. Should Chief Judge
Krieger overrule the report and recommendation and grant Plaintiff additional time to
serve Defendant Mathis, Plaintiff may re-file his motion for leave to amend the
complaint.
Date: October 29, 2014
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?