Weatherspoon v. Dinsa et al
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 89 Motion to Amend/Correct - Signed by Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen. (CCie)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-12756
DISTRICT JUDGE LAURIE J. MICHELSON
MAGISTRATE JUDGE R. STEVEN WHALEN
SURJIT DINSA, et al.,
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO AMEND
On July 11, 2014, Plaintiff Morris Weatherspoon, a prison inmate in the custody of
the Michigan Department of Corrections (“MDOC”), filed a pro se civil complaint under
42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical conditions in
violation of the Eighth Amendment. Before the Court is his motion to amend his
complaint [Doc. #89].
Despite the general rule of liberality with which leave to file amended complaints
is to be granted, see Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a) , the Sixth Circuit has held that when a proposed
amended complaint would not survive a motion to dismiss, the court may properly deny
the amendment. Neighborhood Development Corp. v. Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation, 632 F.2d 21, 23 (6th Cir. 1980); Thiokol Corporation v. Department of
Treasury, 987 F.2d 376 (6th Cir. 1993).
Plaintiff seeks to amend his complaint by adding information regarding
Defendants Potts, Conrad, and Jindal. Potts and Conrad, who were allegedly involved in
Plaintiff’s dental care have already been dismissed. I have filed a Report and
Recommendation that Jindal be granted summary judgment. Plaintiff’s requested
amendment would be futile.
Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to amend [Doc. #89] is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/R. Steven Whalen
R. STEVEN WHALEN
United States Magistrate Judge
Dated: March 1, 2017
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was sent to parties of record on
March 1, 2017, electronically and/or by U.S. mail.
s/Carolyn M. Ciesla
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?