CRENSHAW v. HAMILTON, 08-CV-6186L. (2012)
Court: District Court, W.D. New York
Number: infdco20120504a15
Visitors: 15
Filed: Apr. 30, 2012
Latest Update: Apr. 30, 2012
Summary: DECISION AND ORDER DAVID G. LARIMER, District Judge. This Court referred all pretrial matters in this case to United States Magistrate Judge Jonathan W. Feldman pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b). Plaintiff moved to amend his complaint and in a thorough Report and Recommendation (Dkt. #115), Magistrate Judge Feldman discussed the facts of the case, the history of prior proceedings and the legal standards concerning such a request. Magistrate Judge Feldman recommended that the Court deny plaintiff'
Summary: DECISION AND ORDER DAVID G. LARIMER, District Judge. This Court referred all pretrial matters in this case to United States Magistrate Judge Jonathan W. Feldman pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b). Plaintiff moved to amend his complaint and in a thorough Report and Recommendation (Dkt. #115), Magistrate Judge Feldman discussed the facts of the case, the history of prior proceedings and the legal standards concerning such a request. Magistrate Judge Feldman recommended that the Court deny plaintiff's..
More
DECISION AND ORDER
DAVID G. LARIMER, District Judge.
This Court referred all pretrial matters in this case to United States Magistrate Judge Jonathan W. Feldman pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Plaintiff moved to amend his complaint and in a thorough Report and Recommendation (Dkt. #115), Magistrate Judge Feldman discussed the facts of the case, the history of prior proceedings and the legal standards concerning such a request. Magistrate Judge Feldman recommended that the Court deny plaintiff's motion to amend or supplement his complaint.
The time within which to file objections has lapsed and no objections have been filed. In spite of the lack of objections, this Court carefully reviewed the pending motion (Dkt. #93) and the above-referenced Report and Recommendation. I see no reason to modify or reject the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. He carefully considered all the factors, and I agree with his assessment and, therefore, plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint (Dkt. #93) is in all respects denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
