Warren v. USA, No. 6:2019cv00078 - Document 111 (E.D. Ky. 2021)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER re 109 RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION re 106 Amended Complaint filed by Lamont L. Warren: 1. The Recommended Disposition (DE 109) is ADOPTED as the Court's opinion; and 2. Plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint (DE 106) is DENIED. Signed by Judge Karen K. Caldwell on 6/24/2021.(MM)cc: COR, Lamond L. Warren via US Mail.
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Warren v. USA Doc. 111 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY SOUTHERN DIVISION LONDON LAMONT L. WARREN, CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:19-78-KKC-EBA Plaintiff, OPINION AND ORDER v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. *** *** *** This matter is before the Court on the Magistrate Judge’s Recommended Disposition. (DE 109.) After initial screening under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 and 1915A, the Court dismissed all of Plaintiff Lamont L. Warren’s claims, except for certain FTCA claims against Defendant. (DE 27 at 13.) The Court set the deadline for joining parties or amending pleadings as May 21, 2020. (DE 54 at 1.) On April 14, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion that the Court construed as a motion for leave to file an amended complaint. (DE 66.) The Magistrate Judge issued a Recommended Disposition, recommending that the Court deny the motion. (DE 80 at 5.) The Court adopted the recommendation and denied the motion. (DE 82 at 2.) On April 15, 2021— after the deadline for filing amended complaints and without leave from the Court—Plaintiff filed another amended complaint essentially identical to the one filed in his first motion to amend his complaint. (DE 106.) The Magistrate Judge also construed that motion as a motion for leave to file an amended complaint and issued a Recommended Disposition that recommended that the Court deny the motion. (DE 109 at 4.) Fifteen days later, Plaintiff filed an objection to the Recommended Disposition. (DE 110.) 1 Dockets.Justia.com The Recommended Disposition finds several flaws with Plaintiff’s motion. For one, Plaintiff’s motion is untimely, and he has failed to show good cause for his tardiness or lack of prejudice to Defendant. (DE 109 at 2-3.) Further, the Recommended Disposition concludes that even if Plaintiff could show good cause or lack of prejudice, his amendment would be futile, as his claims are subject to dismissal. (Id. at 3-4.) This is because Plaintiff’s allegations are “vague and conclusory,” and he has not otherwise exhausted his administrative remedies as to the defendants that he seeks to add. (Id. at 3.) After review of the record, the Court agrees with the Recommended Disposition’s analysis. Plaintiff’s response to the Recommended Disposition is largely unintelligible and fails to offer any sound argument in opposition to the Magistrate Judge’s findings. Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows: 1. The Recommended Disposition (DE 109) is ADOPTED as the Court’s opinion; and 2. Plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint (DE 106) is DENIED. Dated June 24, 2021 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
