Opinion
Civil Action No. 12-cv-01434-CMA-MEH
06-25-2012
JOHN RAINEY, Plaintiff, v. RICHARD, Defendant.
MINUTE ORDER
Entered by Michael E. Hegarty , United States Magistrate Judge, on June 25, 2012.
Plaintiff's "Unopposed Motion to Submit Two Grievances into Complaint" [filed June 22, 2012; docket #14] is denied. To the extent the Plaintiff wishes to amend his Complaint to add allegations in this case, he may file an Amended Complaint once as a matter of course (i.e., without seeking permission from the Court) either before or within 21 days after the Defendant files an answer or motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Here, the Plaintiff has not yet filed an amended pleading and the Defendant has not yet filed an answer or other response to the operative Complaint.
The Court also notes that Plaintiff has improperly characterized his motion as "unopposed." While Plaintiff is exempt from the conferral requirements of Local Rule 7.1A during his incarceration, the Plaintiff may only characterize his motions as "unopposed" if he has conferred with the opposing party and received confirmation from such party that the motion will not be opposed. See D.C. Colo. LCivR 7.1A and 7.1B.