From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Robinson v. Arpaio

United States District Court, D. Arizona
Feb 19, 2009
No. CV-08-0149-PHX-FJM (D. Ariz. Feb. 19, 2009)

Opinion

No. CV-08-0149-PHX-FJM.

February 19, 2009


ORDER


The court has before it plaintiff's motion to amend Count I to conform to evidence (doc. 57), plaintiff's motion to amend Count II (doc. 64), the report and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (doc. 103), and plaintiff's objections (doc. 109). We also have before us plaintiff's motion for judgment regarding his motion to amend Count I (doc. 102), which we construe as a motion for ruling.

On June 10, 2008, a scheduling order was entered setting September 5, 2008, as the deadline to amend the complaint (doc. 17). Plaintiff filed the instant motions to amend on October 3, 2008, and November 3, 2008, well past the amendment deadline. Plaintiff's motions to amend seek to add several entirely new claims to his complaint. We agree with the Magistrate Judge that this late amendment would unfairly prejudice defendants and accordingly we adopt the report and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge in accordance with Rule 72(b)(3), Fed.R.Civ.P., and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). IT IS ORDERED DENYING plaintiff's motion to amend Count I (doc. 57) and DENYING plaintiff's motion to amend Count II (doc. 64). It is further ordered DENYING plaintiff's motion for [ruling] on Count I on grounds of mootness (doc. 102).


Summaries of

Robinson v. Arpaio

United States District Court, D. Arizona
Feb 19, 2009
No. CV-08-0149-PHX-FJM (D. Ariz. Feb. 19, 2009)
Case details for

Robinson v. Arpaio

Case Details

Full title:Akmal Jacoby Robinson, Plaintiff, v. Joseph M. Arpaio, et al., Defendants

Court:United States District Court, D. Arizona

Date published: Feb 19, 2009

Citations

No. CV-08-0149-PHX-FJM (D. Ariz. Feb. 19, 2009)