ORDER

JAMES M. MOODY, JR., District Judge.

The Court has reviewed the Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition submitted by United States Magistrate Judge Joe J. Volpe.

In response to his query (Doc. No. 38), Mr. Laquerre's objections to the Proposed Findings and Recommendations were received on November 22, 2019 and filed as Document No. 37. The Clerk is directed to send Mr. Laquerre a file-marked copy of his objections.

Mr. Laquerre's motion to amend his complaint (Doc. No. 40) is denied. On August 16, 2019, he was given leave to submit a superseding amended complaint within thirty days of the date of the order. On August 26, 2019, he filed an untitled, thirty-three page document (Document No. 6) which the Judge Volpe treated as an amended complaint. No other document titled "amended complaint" was filed within the thirty days allowed by the Judge Volpe's order. Now Mr. Laquerre asserts that his August 26th filing was an "addendum" rather than an amended complaint. The Rules of Federal Procedure do not provide for the filing of addendums. Judge Volpe was correct in treating Document No. 6 as an amended complaint.

After carefully considering Mr. Laquerre's objections and making a de novo review of the record, the Court concludes that the Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition should be, and hereby is, approved and adopted in its entirety as this Court's findings in all respects.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:

1. Defendant Joe Page's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 21) is GRANTED.

2. Plaintiff's request for a file-marked copy of his objections (Doc. No. 38) is GRANTED.

3. Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint (Doc. No. 40) is DENIED.

4. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 6) is DISMISSED without prejudice.

5. This dismissal counts as a "strike" for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

6. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an in forma pauperis appeal from an Order adopting these recommendations and the accompanying Judgment would not be taken in good faith.