Opinion
Case No.: 5:07cv128/MCR/EMT.
February 15, 2008
ORDER
This cause is before the court on Plaintiff's "Motion for Clarification" (Doc. 27), which shall be construed as a Motion for Reconsideration. Plaintiff requests that this court reconsider the order issued on January 4, 2008 (Doc. 26), denying Plaintiff's "Motion to Amend Facts" (Doc. 25).
Plaintiff's fourth amended complaint (Doc. 20) alleges that in October 2006 Defendants wrongfully caused him to be arrested for failing to register as a violent career offender. Defendant Mark Smith filed a special report and statement of facts on January 18, 2008 (Docs. 29 — 30). The record does not reflect that Defendant McKeithen has been served or waived service. Plaintiff sought to amend his complaint to add additional facts relating to Dr. Michael T. Derrico, who has allegedly administered medication to Plaintiff during his incarceration that followed the alleged unlawful arrest, which has caused Plaintiff to experience adverse side effects ( see Doc. 25). The court denied Plaintiff's motion to amend, noting in pertinent part, that facts related to Plaintiff's subsequent incarceration were unrelated to the claims in the instant case. Thus, Plaintiff was advised that if he wished to pursue claims related to his subsequent incarceration, he should pursue those claims in a separate civil rights action ( see Doc. 26).
Plaintiff shall not respond to Defendant Mark Smith's special report and statement of facts until he has been instructed to do so by the court.
In the instant motion, Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the order denying his motion to amend, clarifying that he only wished to add facts relating to Dr. Derrico to his complaint, but he did not intend to add Dr. Derrico as a Defendant (Doc. 27). However, the facts are irrelevant to the claims against Mark Smith and Sheriff McKeithen, regardless of whether Dr. Derrico is or is not named as a Defendant.
Thus, Plaintiff has failed to show that the order issued on January 4, 2008 (Doc. 26) was clearly erroneous or contrary to law; therefore, the motion for reconsideration shall be denied. Plaintiff is advised that he may obtain review of an order of this court on any pretrial matter by filing a motion for reconsideration with the district court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), in which he must show that this court's order was clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
Plaintiff's "Motion for Clarification" construed as a Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 27), is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED.