Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00684/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00684-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

 

 On April 16, 2015, Plaintiff Anthony James Merrick, who is confined in the 

Arizona State Prison Complex-Yuma, commenced the instant action (Doc. 1), and filed a 

pro se Second Amended Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on July 24, 2015 (Doc. 

14). On May 13, 2016, Merrick filed a motion to supplement the pleadings pursuant to 

Rule 15(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, seeking to supplement the pleadings 

with transactions, occurrences, and events that occurred after the filing of his Second 

Amended Complaint. (Docs. 52, 53.) While Defendants filed a response opposing the 

request on June 15, 2016 (Doc. 63), no reply was filed. 

 On July 8, 2016, the Honorable Bridget S. Bade, United States Magistrate Judge, 

issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 65), recommending that the motion 

to supplement the pleadings be denied. Merrick was informed that he had fourteen days 

to file an objection to the R&R. However, he did not do so. Instead, Merrick filed a Rule 

60(c) motion to vacate (Doc. 68) and declaration (Doc. 69), dated July 19, 2016, urging 

the Court to vacate the R&R because he did not receive Defendants’ response to the 

Anthony James Merrick, 

 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

No. CV-15-00684-PHX-SPL (BSB)

ORDER 

Case 2:15-cv-00684-SPL-BSB Document 70 Filed 07/27/16 Page 1 of 3
2 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

motion, and was therefore precluded from filing a reply or an objection. Because nothing 

prevented Merrick from objecting to the issues addressed in the R&R, and additional 

briefing would not lead this Court to arrive at a different conclusion, the motion to vacate 

will be denied.1

 The Court has reviewed Merrick’s proposed supplemental pleading and the 

docket, and is in agreement with Judge Bade’s recommendation and her supporting 

reasoning. As addressed in the R&R, the amendment and discovery deadlines have 

passed. (See Docs. 31, 48.) Permitting Merrick to supplement his pleadings at this 

juncture, the functional equivalent of granting him leave to file a Third Amended 

Complaint, would unduly delay the resolution of this case. It would prejudice Defendants 

who would be unable to conduct discovery and investigate the new allegations. Further, 

amendment would be futile. As explained in the R&R, the proposed supplemental 

allegations fail to state a claim for relief. The Court will therefore adopt the R&R and 

deny Merrick’s motion to supplement the pleadings. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating 

that the district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 

recommendations made by the magistrate”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge 

may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or 

return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.”). Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED:

1. That the Motion Pursuant to Rule 60(c) (Doc. 68) is denied; 

2. That the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 65) is 

accepted and adopted by the Court; and 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

 1

 The Court adds as a side note that Rule 60 is not a mechanism for vacating a Magistrate Judge’s R&R. An R&R is not a final judgment or an order; it is a recommendation to the District Judge as to how he or she should rule on or resolve an 

issue pending before the Court. 

Case 2:15-cv-00684-SPL-BSB Document 70 Filed 07/27/16 Page 2 of 3
3 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

3. That the Motion to Supplement the Pleadings (Doc. 52) is denied. 

 Dated this 26th day of July, 2016.

Honorable Steven P. Logan

United States District Judge

 

Case 2:15-cv-00684-SPL-BSB Document 70 Filed 07/27/16 Page 3 of 3