MATELIC v. MENDOZA, 12-13523. (2013)
Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan
Number: infdco20130816a62
Visitors: 3
Filed: Aug. 12, 2013
Latest Update: Aug. 12, 2013
Summary: ORDER R. STEVEN WHALEN, Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff John Matelic, who is proceeding pro se, has filed a motion to amend his complaint [Doc. #21]. The motion will be DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. E.D. Mich. Local Rule 15.1 provides that "[a] party who moves to amend a pleading shall attach the proposed amended pleading to the motion." Plaintiff has not done that. Although he states that he wishes to name additional Defendants, he does not state who those Defendants are. Therefore, his motion to
Summary: ORDER R. STEVEN WHALEN, Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff John Matelic, who is proceeding pro se, has filed a motion to amend his complaint [Doc. #21]. The motion will be DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. E.D. Mich. Local Rule 15.1 provides that "[a] party who moves to amend a pleading shall attach the proposed amended pleading to the motion." Plaintiff has not done that. Although he states that he wishes to name additional Defendants, he does not state who those Defendants are. Therefore, his motion to a..
More
ORDER
R. STEVEN WHALEN, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff John Matelic, who is proceeding pro se, has filed a motion to amend his complaint [Doc. #21]. The motion will be DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
E.D. Mich. Local Rule 15.1 provides that "[a] party who moves to amend a pleading shall attach the proposed amended pleading to the motion." Plaintiff has not done that. Although he states that he wishes to name additional Defendants, he does not state who those Defendants are. Therefore, his motion to amend [Doc. #21] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to filing a motion that conforms to the Local Rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
