Opinion
Case No.: 3:05cv39/MCR/EMT.
September 17, 2008
ORDER
This cause comes on for consideration upon the magistrate judge's third report and recommendation dated August 19, 2008. In her report the magistrate judge recommends dismissal without prejudice of plaintiff's First Amendment claim, as asserted in his third amended complaint, with leave to file an amended complaint asserting only a First Amendment claim against defendants Schill and Garlow regarding their reading of plaintiff's legal papers on August 7, 2004. (Doc. 116). Plaintiff has been furnished a copy of the report and recommendation and has been afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). No objections have been filed.
Having considered the report and recommendation, the court has determined that the report and recommendation should be adopted.
The court notes that on September 2, 2008, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend, along with a proposed fourth amended complaint. This motion is denied. Cursory review indicates that the proposed amended complaint does not comply with the recommendations set forth in the magistrate judge's third report and recommendation; additionally, at something over seventy-one pages, the proposed complaint is unnecessarily lengthy and verbose. The proposed fourth amended complaint is therefore rejected. Plaintiff shall be given one final opportunity to file an amended complaint that complies with the parameters set forth in the magistrate judge's third report and recommendation.
The standard complaint form provided to prisoners should be of sufficient length for plaintiff to assert the sort of allegations identified above. Accordingly, absent being granted leave by the magistrate judge, for good cause shown, to file an overlong complaint plaintiff should confine his allegations and claims to the space provided on the form.
Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:
1. The magistrate judge's report and recommendation is adopted and incorporated by reference in this order.
2. Plaintiff's First Amendment claim asserted in the third amended complaint is DISMISSED, without prejudice.
3. Plaintiff's motion for leave to file his proposed fourth amended complaint (doc. 117) is DENIED.
4. Plaintiff is granted leave to file a proposed fifth amended complaint within fourteen (14) days of the date of this order in which he asserts only a First Amendment claim against defendants Schill and Garlow regarding their reading of plaintiff's legal papers on August 7, 2004.
DONE AND ORDERED.