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)

Download PDF
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?