Moss v. Aderhold et al

Filing 79

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS of United States Magistrate Judge 75 for 34 Motion to Amend/Correct filed by Dwayne Moss. Plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint is denied. To the extent plaintiff challenges the decision relative to discovery, I affirm the Magistrate Judges decision, on those matters as well. Signed by Hon. David G. Larimer on 5/11/11. (EMA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_______________________________________________
DWAYNE MOSS,

Plaintiff,
DECISION AND ORDER
08-CV-6545L
v.
J. ADERHOLD, et al.,

Defendants.
________________________________________________
This Court referred all pretrial motions in this pro se civil rights action to United States
Magistrate Judge Marian W. Payson pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Two motions were presented
to Magistrate Judge Payson: a motion by the plaintiff to amend his complaint and a motion to compel
discovery from the defendants.
After considering the matter, Magistrate Judge Payson issued a Decision and Order/Report
and Recommendation (Dkt. #75) recommending that this Court deny plaintiff’s motion to amend.
The Magistrate Judge decided defendants’ motions to compel and granted those motions, in part, and
denied them in part.
Plaintiff filed an “appeal” from that decision (Dkt. #76), which I treat as his objections to the
Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that I deny the motion to amend.
Magistrate Judge Payson thoroughly considered the basis for plaintiff’s request to amend and
determined, for several reasons, that the request was not warranted. I agree and concur with
Magistrate Judge Payson’s reasoning concerning the pertinent facts and the law and find no reason
to alter, amend or reverse that recommendation.

It does not appear that plaintiff challenges the Magistrate Judge’s decision concerning
discovery.

CONCLUSION
I accept and adopt the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. #75) of United States Magistrate
Judge Marian W. Payson. Plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint is denied.
To the extent plaintiff challenges the decision relative to discovery, I affirm the Magistrate
Judge’s decision, on those matters as well.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

_______________________________________
DAVID G. LARIMER
United States District Judge
Dated: Rochester, New York
May 11, 2011.

-2-