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)

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