Owen v. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories

Filing 22

ORDER that Plaintiff's 20 "Response to the Memorandum and Recommendation," which the Court construes as both a motion for an extension of time and a motion to amend, is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Sp ecifically, the Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time is GRANTED, and the Plaintiff shall have through and including 1/26/2018 within which to file objections to the Memorandum and Recommendation. The Plaintiff's motion to amend his Complaint is DENIED. Signed by District Judge Martin Reidinger on 1/8/2017. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.) (khm) Modified on 1/8/2017. (khm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO. 1:17-cv-00037-MR-DLH

TED J. OWEN,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES,
)
)
Defendant.
)
________________________________ )

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Plaintiff’s “Response to the
Memorandum and Recommendation” [Doc. 20], which the Court construes
as both a motion for extension of time and a motion to amend.
On December 13, 2017, the Magistrate Judge entered a Memorandum
and Recommendation regarding the disposition of the Defendant’s Motion
for Judgment on the Pleadings. [Doc. 19]. The parties were advised that
they had a period of fourteen (14) days in which to file any objections to the
Memorandum and Recommendation. On December 27, 2017, the pro se
Plaintiff filed a pleading entitled “Response to the Memorandum and
Recommendation.” [Doc. 20].
In his pleading, the Plaintiff indicates that he objects to the Magistrate
Judge’s recommendation to dismiss this case but he requests an extension

of time to file such objections. The Plaintiff also requests leave to amend his
complaint in order to “state a claim for relief and revise my products liability
and negligence [claims].” [Doc. 20 at 1].
The Plaintiff’s request for leave to amend his Complaint is denied. The
Plaintiff had twenty-one days from the filing of the Defendant's motion for
judgment on the pleadings to file an amended complaint as of right and to
address any pleading deficiencies identified by the Defendant in its
motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B). Despite having the unilateral right
to do so, the Plaintiff failed to amend his Complaint within the time required.
Having failed to amend his pleading and to address the deficiencies
identified by the Defendant, the Plaintiff left the Court with no option but to
address the Defendant’s motion on its merits. In so doing, the Magistrate
Judge engaged in a thorough analysis of the Plaintiff’s claims and the factual
allegations made in support thereof. The Plaintiff cannot now attempt to
circumvent the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation by seeking to amend his
Complaint. See Kotsias v. CMC II, LLC, No. 1:15-CV-00242-MR-DLH, 2016
WL 7384594, at *1 (W.D.N.C. Dec. 20, 2016); Bailey v. Polk County, No.
1:10cv264, 2011 WL 4565449, at *4 (W.D.N.C. Sept. 29, 2011). Accordingly,
the Plaintiff’s request to amend his Complaint is denied. The Court will,

2

however, permit the Plaintiff a brief extension of time in which to file his
objections to the Memorandum and Recommendation.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s “Response to the
Memorandum and Recommendation” [Doc. 20], which the Court construes
as both a motion for an extension of time and a motion to amend, is
GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Specifically, the Plaintiff’s
motion for an extension of time is GRANTED, and the Plaintiff shall have
through and including January 26, 2018, within which to file objections to
the Memorandum and Recommendation. The Plaintiff’s motion to amend
his Complaint is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Signed: January 8, 2018

3