Silva v. McKenna et al
Filing
53
ORDER granting 45 Motion to Amend. The Clerk is directed to docket Plaintiff's proposed Amended Complaint (ECF No 45-1 and 45-2) as a separate docket entry. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L Strombom.(CMG; cc to Plaintiff)
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA
4
5
MATTHEW SILVA,
6
Plaintiff,
7
v.
NO. C11-5629 RBL/KLS
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
ROB McKENNA, JOHN S. BLONIEN,
DOUGLAS CARR, KIMBERLY
FRINELL, AMANDA IGCHELBRING,
ELDON VAIL, DAN PACHOLKE,
STEVE SINCLAIR, CHRIS
BOWMAN, CHUCK PEASE,
OFFICIAL JURGENSEN, LINDA
MICHAEL, DAVID S. ROBERTS,
TAMARA ROWDEN, RONALD
FREDERICK, DEVON SCHRUM,
LORI SCAMAHORN, DENNIS
DAHNE, KERRI McTARSNEY,
CORYDON WHALEY, CLINT MAY,
CHERYL SULLIVAN, and VANESSA
COLEMAN,
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT
Defendants.
18
19
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint. ECF No. 45 (with
20
proposed Amended Complaint attached at 45-1 and 45-2). Defendants do not object to
21
Plaintiff’s motion to amend. ECF No. 51. Accordingly, Plaintiff shall be granted leave to
22
amend his complaint as proposed. Plaintiff is reminded that he must serve all Defendants who
23
are named in his amended complaint who have not yet been served with his original complaint.
24
25
26
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Pursuant to Rule 4(m), Plaintiff must serve copies of the Summons
and Amended Complaint upon each of the named Defendants within 120 days of this Order.
ORDER
1
1
2
3
4
5
Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
(1)
Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend (ECF No. 45) is GRANTED.
(2)
The Clerk is directed to docket Plaintiff’s proposed Amended Complaint (ECF
No. 45-1 and 45-2 as a separate docket entry and to send a copy of this Order to Plaintiff and
counsel for Defendants.
6
7
DATED this 16th day of February, 2012.
8
A
9
Karen L. Strombom
United States Magistrate Judge
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ORDER
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?