Dyson v. Donahoe et al

Filing 94

OPINION AND ORDER: Court DENIES 88 Motion to Supplement Modified Verified Third Amended Complaint but FINDS that the exhibits attached to the instant motion at docket entry 88-1 have now been served on Defendant as a Rule 26 supplemental disclosure. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paul R Cherry on 8/2/2016. cc: Dyson (tc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HAMMOND DIVISION
DAVID R. DYSON,
Plaintiff,

)
)
)
v.
)
)
MEGAN J. BRENNAN, sued in her official )
capacity as Post Master General,
)
Defendant.
)

CAUSE NO.: 2:14-CV-389-JD-PRC

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Supplement Modified Verified Third
Amended Complaint [DE 88], filed by pro se Plaintiff David R. Dyson on July 12, 2016. Plaintiff
asks the Court for leave to supplement his Third Amended Complaint with documentary evidence
in support of his claim brought under Title VII in Count III. On July 14, 2016, the Defendant filed
a response brief in opposition. Plaintiff has not filed a reply brief, and the time to do so has passed.
Plaintiff offers no legal basis for supplementing a complaint with documentary support.
However, as suggested by Defendant, it would be appropriate for Plaintiff to serve Defendant with
those documents as part of his obligations under Rule 26. Defendant has offered to accept the
exhibits attached to the instant motion at docket entry 88-1 as a supplement to Plaintiff’s initial
disclosures.
Accordingly, the Court hereby DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Supplement Modified Verified
Third Amended Complaint [DE 88] but FINDS that the exhibits attached to the instant motion at
docket entry 88-1 have now been served on Defendant as a Rule 26 supplemental disclosure.
SO ORDERED this 2nd day of August, 2016.
s/ Paul R. Cherry
MAGISTRATE JUDGE PAUL R. CHERRY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
cc:

Pro se Plaintiff