Filed: May 10, 2016
Latest Update: May 10, 2016
Summary: ORDER KENDALL J. NEWMAN , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se, with this civil rights action seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. The instant action proceeds on claims that defendants Dr. Windsor, Dr. Lankford, Dr. Lee and T. Mahoney were deliberately indifferent to plaintiff's serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment, specifically in connection with plaintiff's pain management. On May 6, 2016, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to
Summary: ORDER KENDALL J. NEWMAN , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se, with this civil rights action seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. The instant action proceeds on claims that defendants Dr. Windsor, Dr. Lankford, Dr. Lee and T. Mahoney were deliberately indifferent to plaintiff's serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment, specifically in connection with plaintiff's pain management. On May 6, 2016, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to a..
More
ORDER
KENDALL J. NEWMAN, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se, with this civil rights action seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The instant action proceeds on claims that defendants Dr. Windsor, Dr. Lankford, Dr. Lee and T. Mahoney were deliberately indifferent to plaintiff's serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment, specifically in connection with plaintiff's pain management.
On May 6, 2016, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend his complaint. Plaintiff's motion was not, however, accompanied by a proposed amended complaint. As a prisoner, plaintiff's pleadings are subject to evaluation by this court pursuant to the in forma pauperis statute. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Moreover, plaintiff was informed in this court's April 29, 2016 order that if he sought leave to amend, his motion to amend must be accompanied by a proposed amended complaint. (ECF No. 31 at 2.) Because plaintiff did not submit a proposed amended complaint, the court is unable to evaluate it.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for leave to amend (ECF No. 33) is denied without prejudice.
