Opinion
11 Civ. 2828 (RLE)
03-12-2012
ANDREW J. MAYO, Plaintiff, v. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, et al., Defendants,
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
RONALD L. ELLIS, United States Magistrate Judge:
On August 18, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend the complaint to add new defendants, NYU Medical School and Mount Sinai Medical School. "In the ordinary course, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that courts 'should freely give leave' to amend a complaint 'when justice so requires.'" Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2); Williams v. Citigroup, Inc.,659 F.3d 208, 212 (2d Cir. 2011). A pro se litigant should generally be granted leave "when a liberal reading of the complaint gives any indication that a valid claim might be stated." Shomo v. City of N.Y., 579 F.3d 176, 183 (2d Cir. 2009). However, "leave to amend a complaint need not be granted when amendment would be futile." Ellis v. Chao, 336 F.3d 114, 127 (2d Cir. 2003).
Plaintiff does not provide any facts that support his position that the proposed defendants have any nexus with the claims alleged in this case. While he states that both NYU and Mount Sinai "prepared, performed services that resulted in injury to my person," it is unclear what role, if any, the proposed defendants are alleged to have played with respect to Plaintiff's claims. Where Plaintiff "has provided no details beyond this naked assertion [of a wrongful act]," the court has cause to deny leave. Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend the Complaint is therefore
DENIED without prejudice.
SO ORDERED this 12th day of March 2012
New York, New York
__________________
The Honorable Ronald L. Ellis
United States Magistrate Judge