Reynolds v. Bartell et al

Filing 23

ORDER denying 16 MOTION to Amend/Correct 1 Complaint without prejudice. If the district judge denies Defendants' motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff may renew his motion to amend. Signed by Magistrate Judge Shiva V Hodges on 12/23/2015. (mwal)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Nathanael L. Reynolds, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) Sheriff John H. Bartell, Jr.; Investigator ) Kennedy; and Officer W. Jackson, #310, ) ) Defendants. ) ) C/A No.: 4:15-695-MGL-SVH ORDER Nathanael L. Reynolds (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his constitutional rights. He sues former Williamsburg County Sheriff John H. Bartell, Jr. and Williamsburg County Sheriff’s Department officers Kennedy and Jackson (collectively “Defendants”). This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s motion to amend. [ECF No. 16]. In his motion to amend, Plaintiff seeks to: 1) clarify that Investigator Kennedy is “A. Kennedy,” (2) clartify that he is suing Defendants in their individual and official capacities, (3) provide additional factual allegations about Kennedy and about Jackson’s alleged failure to file a supplemental report, (4) add an allegation that he wrote grievances to Bartell, to which he never received a response, and (5) add a request for injunctive relief. [ECF No. 16]. “[L]eave [to amend] shall be freely given when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). “A motion to amend should be denied only when the amendment would be prejudicial to the opposing party, there has been bad faith on the part of the moving party, or the amendment would be futile.” HCMF Corp. v. Allen, 238 F.3d 273, 276 (4th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation marks omitted). Plaintiff’s proposed amendment is futile, as the undersigned has issued a Report and Recommendation contemporaneously with this order, recommending Defendants be granted summary judgment. The undersigned has reviewed the proposed amendment and finds that the additional legal and factual allegations would not change the recommendation. Therefore, the undersigned denies Plaintiff’s motion to amend without prejudice. If the district judge denies Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff may renew his motion to amend. IT IS SO ORDERED. December 23, 2015 Columbia, South Carolina Shiva V. Hodges 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?