United States District Court, N.D. Illinois
September 24, 2004.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: PHILIP REINHARD, District Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff, Darrion Foote, filed a pro se motion for leave
to file a fourth amended complaint on July 29, 2004. The
magistrate judge issued an order denying plaintiff's motion.
Plaintiff has filed a "motion to object to the order" denying his
motion for leave to amend.
Plaintiff, recognizing his motion to object is filed beyond the
10-day period prescribed in Rule 72(a) for objecting to
non-dispositive orders of a magistrate judge, has stated in his
motion that he did not receive a copy of the magistrate judge's
order in a timely manner because it was sent to a state
correctional facility when he was being housed at the local jail.
The court need not resolve the timeliness of plaintiff's motion
to object as it denies the motion on its merits.
The magistrate judge carefully reviewed the procedural history
of this case, emphasized that plaintiff has filed several prior
complaints and, on October 10, 2003, was given leave to file a
fourth amended complaint within 60 days, and noted the fact that
dispositive summary judgment motions are currently pending. The
magistrate judge also issued a very thorough and well-reasoned
opinion denying the motion for leave to file a fourth amended
complaint. Plaintiff has not identified any reason to modify or
set aside that order, nor is that order clearly erroneous or
contrary to law.
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff's motion to object to the
magistrate judge's order denying his motion for leave to file a
fourth amended complaint is denied.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.