Opinion
No. 03 C 50001.
September 24, 2004
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff, Darrion Foote, filed a pro se motion for leave to file a fourth amended complaint on July 29, 2004. The magistrate judge issued an order denying plaintiff's motion. Plaintiff has filed a "motion to object to the order" denying his motion for leave to amend.
Plaintiff, recognizing his motion to object is filed beyond the 10-day period prescribed in Rule 72(a) for objecting to non-dispositive orders of a magistrate judge, has stated in his motion that he did not receive a copy of the magistrate judge's order in a timely manner because it was sent to a state correctional facility when he was being housed at the local jail. The court need not resolve the timeliness of plaintiff's motion to object as it denies the motion on its merits.
The magistrate judge carefully reviewed the procedural history of this case, emphasized that plaintiff has filed several prior complaints and, on October 10, 2003, was given leave to file a fourth amended complaint within 60 days, and noted the fact that dispositive summary judgment motions are currently pending. The magistrate judge also issued a very thorough and well-reasoned opinion denying the motion for leave to file a fourth amended complaint. Plaintiff has not identified any reason to modify or set aside that order, nor is that order clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff's motion to object to the magistrate judge's order denying his motion for leave to file a fourth amended complaint is denied.