May v. Heyns et al

Filing 24

ORDER ALLOWING PLAINTIFF TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT. Amended Complaint due by October 16, 2015. Signed by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford. (MarW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
TRAVIS MAY,
Plaintiff,
v.

Civil Action No. 15-10785
Honorable Arthur J. Tarnow
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford

DANIEL HEYNS, et al.,
Defendants.
___________________________/
ORDER ALLOWING PLAINTIFF TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT
On March 3, 2015, Travis May filed a complaint against Daniel Heyns
and several other individuals vaguely asserting violations of his
constitutional rights and stating that he “will follow-up with an amended
complaint stating exact nature of each claim.” [R. 1, PgID 4]. May never
filed an amended complaint and, on September 14, 2015, Defendants filed
a motion to dismiss, after which the Honorable Arthur J. Tarnow referred
this action to the undersigned to resolve all pretrial matters pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B). [R. 21; R. 22]. In lieu of filing a response to
Defendants’ motion to dismiss, May filed a motion to amend the complaint
on October 2, 2015. [R. 23].
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B), May could have amended his
complaint as of right within 21 days after Defendants served their motion to

dismiss, or until October 5, 2015. May, however, failed to attach an
amended complaint to his motion or otherwise file an amended complaint
by October 5. 1 Because May failed to attach an amended complaint to his
motion to amend, the Court cannot determine whether the motion is
justified.
May must file a proposed amended complaint by October 16, 2015.
The Court will review the proposed amended complaint and determine how
to proceed with the motion to amend and motion to dismiss.
IT IS ORDERED.
s/Elizabeth A. Stafford
ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD
United States Magistrate Judge
Dated: October 5, 2015
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES REGARDING OBJECTIONS
The parties’ attention is drawn to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), which
provides a period of fourteen (14) days from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order within which to file objections for consideration by the district
judge under 28 U.S. C. §636(b)(1). Unless ordered otherwise by the Court,

1

As a consequence, May’s filing was in violation of E.D. Mich. LR 15.1,
which mandates, “A party who moves to amend a pleading shall attach the
proposed amended pleading to the motion.” May is warned that, while
maintaining an action in this Court, he must consult and follow the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure and this district’s local rules.
2

the filing of an appeal to the District Judge does not stay the parties’
obligations in this Order. See E.D. Mich. LR 72.2.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served
upon counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s ECF
System to their respective email or First Class U.S. mail addresses
disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on October 5, 2015.
s/Marlena Williams
MARLENA WILLIAMS
Case Manager

3