Opinion
7:19-CV-155 (WLS)
08-09-2021
CHRISTOPHER BEAL, Plaintiff, v. JIMMY MILES, et al., Defendants.
ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION
THOMAS Q. LANGSTAFF, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Presently before the Court are Plaintiff's Motions to Amend and first Motion for Summary Judgment. (Docs. 173, 214, 225).
RECOMMENDATION
Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 173)
I On October 22, 2020, Plaintiff filed his first Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 173).
In this Motion, Plaintiff requests judgment against Defendants Miles, Smith, and Coleman. Id. After Plaintiff filed his motion, Defendants Hall, Moody, Gibson, Waters, Emmons, Wilkerson, and Pack were added to the case. (Doc. 202); Beal v. Ga. Dep't of Corr., 7:20-CV-42, Docs. 18, 39 (M.D. Ga. terminated Jan. 27, 2021); Beal v. Hall, 7:20-CV-146, Docs. 13, 24 (M.D. Ga. terminated Jan. 4, 2021). Plaintiff then filed a second Motion for Summary Judgment to include all the current Defendants. (Doc. 231-1). Accordingly, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff's first Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 173) be FOUND TO BE MOOT.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the parties may serve and file written objections to these recommendations, or seek an extension of time to file objections, WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS after being served with a copy thereof. The district judge shall make a de novo determination as to those portions of the Recommendation to which objection is made; all other portions of the Recommendation may be reviewed by the district judge for clear error.
The parties are hereby notified that, pursuant to Eleventh Circuit Rule 3-1, “[a] party failing to object to a magistrate judge's findings or recommendations contained in a report and recommendation in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) waives the right to challenge on appeal the district court's order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions if the party was informed of the time period for objecting and the consequences on appeal for failing to object. In the absence of a proper objection, however, the court may review on appeal for plain error if necessary in the interests of justice.”
ORDER
Motions to Amend (Docs. 214, 225)
Plaintiff has filed two Motions to Amend, in which he seeks to provide the Court with “sufficient factual matter.” (Docs. 214, p. 2; 225, p. 1). However, the proposed amended complaints provided merely restate Plaintiff's current claims. (See Docs. 214-1, 225-2).
While Plaintiff refers to these documents as supplemental complaints, the documents are more accurately described as amendments as they do not set out “any transaction, occurrence, or event that happened after the date of the pleading to be supplemented.” See FED. R. CIV. P. 15(d).
Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides, in part, as follows:
(1) Amending as a Matter of Course
A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within:
(A) 21 days after serving it, or
(B) if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is required, 21 days after service of a responsive pleading or 21 days after service of a motion under Rule12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier.
(2) Other Amendments
In all other cases, a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party's written consent or the court's leave. The court should freely give leave when justice so requires.
As Plaintiff has already amended his Complaint (Docs. 4, 5, 32, 34, 50, 51, 201, 202), he needs leave from the Court to amend further. Although the decision to grant or deny a motion to amend a complaint is within the court's discretion, “a justifying reason must be apparent for denial of a motion to amend.” Moore v. Baker, 989 F.2d 1129, 1131 (11th Cir. 1993). This Court may consider factors “such as undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, [and] futility of amendment, etc.....” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962).
Prior to filing these Motions, Plaintiff successfully amended his Complaint in this case five times and filed a total of five motions to amend in the two companion cases prior to their consolidation into this case. (Docs. 4, 5, 32, 34, 50, 51, 201, 202); Beal v. Ga. Dep't of Corr., 7:20-CV-42, Docs. 5, 12, 15, 17; Beal v. Hall, 7:20-CV-146, Doc. 12. Accordingly, Plaintiff has had numerous opportunities to correct any deficiencies. Further, this case has been pending for nearly two years and dispositive motions have already been filed. As such, Plaintiff's Motions to Amend (Docs. 214, 225) are DENIED.
SO ORDERED and RECOMMENDED.