Filed: Oct. 11, 2019
Latest Update: Oct. 11, 2019
Summary: ORDER SUSAN M. BRNOVICH , District Judge . Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of Magistrate Judge Camille Bibles (Doc. 117) regarding Plaintiff's Motion for Leave for Plaintiff's Supplemental Pleading. (Doc. 107). The R&R recommends that the Motion be denied. The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had fourteen days to file objections to the R&R. (R&R at 15) (citing Rule 72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure) Petitioner filed an objection on Septembe
Summary: ORDER SUSAN M. BRNOVICH , District Judge . Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of Magistrate Judge Camille Bibles (Doc. 117) regarding Plaintiff's Motion for Leave for Plaintiff's Supplemental Pleading. (Doc. 107). The R&R recommends that the Motion be denied. The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had fourteen days to file objections to the R&R. (R&R at 15) (citing Rule 72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure) Petitioner filed an objection on September..
More
ORDER
SUSAN M. BRNOVICH, District Judge.
Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of Magistrate Judge Camille Bibles (Doc. 117) regarding Plaintiff's Motion for Leave for Plaintiff's Supplemental Pleading. (Doc. 107). The R&R recommends that the Motion be denied. The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had fourteen days to file objections to the R&R. (R&R at 15) (citing Rule 72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure) Petitioner filed an objection on September 18, 2019 (Doc. 121).
The Court has considered the objections and reviewed the Report and Recommendation de novo. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that the court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objections are made). The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge's determinations, accepts the recommended decision within the meaning of Rule 72(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., and overrules Plaintiff's objection. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that the district court "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate").
Specifically, Plaintiff feels like he has been misdirected by previous rulings. He says that he filed a new Complaint in CV-19-01839-PHX-SMB(CDB). Upon screening of that Complaint, the Court directed Plaintiff to seek to add those claims to this case and CV-19-01839 was dismissed. The current motion is Plaintiff's effort to do as he was told. However, Plaintiff's Complaint was dismissed in the other case because the complaint exceeded the 15page limit and included 106 pages of exhibits. The Court did not rule on the substance of the claims. Now that Plaintiff has sought to add the claims in this case, the Court considered the merits of the claim and determined that they are futile and should not be allowed to proceed.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. 117) is accepted and Plaintiff's Motion for Leave for Plaintiff's Supplemental Pleadings (Doc. 107) is denied.
