Ansley et al v. Erhart et al
ORDER granting 29 Motion to Amend. The Clerk of Court SHALL DOCKET the proposed Amended Complaint, [Doc. 29-1], as the Plaintiffs Amended Complaint in this case.Signed by Magistrate Judge C Clifford Shirley, Jr on 11/01/2013. (KAW)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
BRENDA BELL, et al.,
ERNEST MONIZ, Ph.D.,
In his official capacity as
United States Secretary of Energy,
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This case is before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Rules of this Court,
and Standing Order 13-02. Now before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend Complaint
[Doc. 29], in which the Plaintiffs move the Court to allow them to amend their Complaint to a
modify the parties and to change their cause of action.
The Court finds, first, that no party has responded in opposition to the Motion to Amend
Complaint [Doc. 29], and the time for doing so has expired, E.D. Tenn. L.R. 7.1. The Court may
treat this failure to respond as acquiescence to the relief sought. See E.D. Tenn. L.R. 7.2.
In addition, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs have complied with Local Rule 15.1, and
the Court finds that the Plaintiffs have demonstrated appropriate grounds for granting leave to
amend under Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Based upon the foregoing, the Motion to Amend [Doc. 29] is GRANTED. The Clerk of
Court SHALL DOCKET the proposed Amended Complaint, [Doc. 29-1], as the Plaintiffs’
Amended Complaint in this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ C. Clifford Shirley, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge
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?