Smiley v. City of Dayton
Filing 63
DECISION AND ENTRY SUSTAINING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS REQUESTING DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES (DOC. # 61 )- For several reasons, the Court rejects Plaintiff's arguments. The deadline ford iscovery expired months ago. See Docs. # 33 , 51 . Moreover, under theapplicable version of Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m), Plaintiff had only 120 days from thefiling of the January 22, 2015, Amended Complaint to substitute namedindividuals for the John/Jane Doe defendants and serve them with the summons. Given that trial in this case is set for January 23, 2017, just one month from now,it would be highly prejudicial to allow Plaintiff to again amend his Complaint to name new defendants at this stage of the litigation. Any such motion for leave to amend would be denied. Given that Plaintiff has not stated a plausible theory of recovery against the City of Dayton, the Court SUSTAINS Defendant's unopposed Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Requesting Dismissal of Plaintiff's Claim for Punitive Damages,Doc. # 61 . Signed by Judge Walter H. Rice on 12/19/16. (kma)
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.
