Hurst v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction et al
Filing
59
OPINION AND ORDER granting 58 motion for leave to file amended complaint. Signed by Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King on 4/23/13. (rew)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
MARK EDWARD HURST,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Civil Action 2:11-cv-1090
Judge Smith
Magistrate Judge King
OHIO DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION
AND CORRECTION, et al.,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
Upon unopposed motion and for good cause shown, plaintiff’s
Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint, Doc. No. 58, is GRANTED.
Plaintiff’s motion indicates that it is intended to serve as an
amended complaint.
See id. at p. 3.
The Clerk is therefore DIRECTED
to remove Doc. No. 58 from the Court’s pending motions list and to
indicate on the docket that Doc. No. 58 is both an amended complaint
and a motion to amend the complaint.
Plaintiff is ADVISED that he must submit copies of the amended
complaint, summonses, and Marshal service forms for defendants John
Gardner and Andrew Eddy, M.D.
The fact that plaintiff was granted
leave to proceed in forma pauperis does not entitle him to free copies
of his filings.
28 U.S.C. § 1915.
See also Anderson v. Gillis, 236
F. App’x 738, 739 (3rd Cir. 2007) (citing Douglas v. Green, 327 F.2d
661 (6th Cir. 1964)); Thomas v. Croft, No. 2:10-cv-74, 2010 WL
1629628, at *3 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 21, 2010).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, if plaintiff submits copies of the
amended complaint, summonses and Marshal service forms for each
defendant, the United States Marshal shall serve by certified mail
upon defendants a copy of the amended complaint filed herein and a
copy of this Order.
Each defendant is ORDERED to answer or otherwise respond to the
amended complaint within forty-five (45) days after being served with
a copy of the amended complaint and a summons.
April 23, 2013
s/Norah McCann King_______
Norah McCann King
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?