Opinion
2:22-cv-10489
11-29-2022
TYRONE WILLIAM MAHAN, Plaintiff, v. K. AUSTIN, ET AL., Defendants.
HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH, DISTRICT JUDGE
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT (ECF No. 80)
PATRICIA T. MORRIS, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff, a Michigan Department of Corrections (“MDOC”) inmate, filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action pro se. On September 8, and September 16, 2022 respectively, he filed two separate motions to add Defendants. (ECF Nos. 61, 66). In the first of the two motions, he sought to add 38 Defendants and in the second, over 50 additional Defendants.
Later, on October 18, 2022, Plaintiff filed the present motion seeking to amend his complaint but did not include a copy of the proposed amended complaint. (ECF No. 80). On October 19, 2022, the undersigned ordered Plaintiff to submit a proposed amended complaint on or before November 18, 2022. (ECF No. 82). The motions to “add defendants” were denied as moot. (ECF No. 96).
Although Plaintiff was given 30 days to submit a proposed amended complaint, that deadline has long passed. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Amend/or Leave to File an Amended Complaint (ECF No. 80) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.