Opinion
CAUSE NO.: 2:14-CV-389-JD-PRC
08-02-2016
DAVID R. DYSON, Plaintiff, v. MEGAN J. BRENNAN, sued in her official capacity as Post Master General, Defendant.
cc: Pro se Plaintiff
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion to Supplement Modified Verified Third Amended Complaint [DE 88], filed by pro se Plaintiff David R. Dyson on July 12, 2016. Plaintiff asks the Court for leave to supplement his Third Amended Complaint with documentary evidence in support of his claim brought under Title VII in Count III. On July 14, 2016, the Defendant filed a response brief in opposition. Plaintiff has not filed a reply brief, and the time to do so has passed.
Plaintiff offers no legal basis for supplementing a complaint with documentary support. However, as suggested by Defendant, it would be appropriate for Plaintiff to serve Defendant with those documents as part of his obligations under Rule 26. Defendant has offered to accept the exhibits attached to the instant motion at docket entry 88-1 as a supplement to Plaintiff's initial disclosures.
Accordingly, the Court hereby DENIES Plaintiff's Motion to Supplement Modified Verified Third Amended Complaint [DE 88] but FINDS that the exhibits attached to the instant motion at docket entry 88-1 have now been served on Defendant as a Rule 26 supplemental disclosure.
SO ORDERED this 2nd day of August, 2016.
s/ Paul R. Cherry
MAGISTRATE JUDGE PAUL R. CHERRY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT cc: Pro se Plaintiff