Martin v. Hurley et al

Filing 10

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to amend ECF No. 9 is DENIED without prejudice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Shirley P. Mensah on 7/9/13. (ARL)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI NORTHERN DIVISION YAPHET MARTIN, Plaintiff, v. JAMES HURLEY, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 2:13CV00048 SPM MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s motion to file an amended complaint and for an extension of time to do so [ECF No. 9]. Plaintiff has not submitted a proposed amended complaint. To obtain leave to file an amended complaint, “a party must submit the proposed amendment along with its motion.” Clayton v. White Hall School Dist., 778 F.2d 457, 460 (8th Cir. 1985); see Wolgin v. Simon, 722 F.2d 389, 395 (8th Cir.1983) (“Absent some indication as to what might be added to the complaint to make it viable, the [moving party] is not entitled to leave to amend.”). Because plaintiff has not submitted his proposed amendment, the Court will deny the motion. The Court denies as moot plaintiff’s request for additional time to file an amended complaint. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow a plaintiff to file an amendment “when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to amend [ECF No. 9] is DENIED without prejudice. Dated this 9th day of July, 2013. /s/ Shirley Padmore Mensah SHIRLEY PADMORE MENSAH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE -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?