Weatherspoon v. Dinsa et al

Filing 121

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 89 Motion to Amend/Correct - Signed by Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen. (CCie)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION MORRIS WEATHERSPOON, #471817, CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-12756 Plaintiff, DISTRICT JUDGE LAURIE J. MICHELSON v. MAGISTRATE JUDGE R. STEVEN WHALEN SURJIT DINSA, et al., Defendants. _________________________________/ 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). -1- 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 Case Manager -2-

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?