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)

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-