Opinion ID: 710726
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Failure to Permit Opportunity to Amend Complaint

Text: 7 Plaintiff first argues that the district court erred in failing to grant him the opportunity to amend his complaint regarding the allegations that the magistrate judge did not explicitly address, see supra note 3, before adopting the magistrate judge's recommendations. However, nowhere in Plaintiff's brief or the record does it indicate that Plaintiff requested leave to amend following the magistrate judge's report. The district court did not err in failing to permit, sua sponte, Plaintiff the opportunity to amend his complaint. 8 Plaintiff also argues that considering the restraints on postal access that incarcerated individuals confront, the time he had to object to the magistrate's report and recommendation was shortened by two-days. However, Plaintiff ignores the fact that the magistrate judge granted Plaintiff ten days from the time he received the report and recommendation to object. Therefore, any delay that Plaintiff encountered in receiving the report and recommendation would not have shortened the time he had to respond. 9 II. The Magistrate Judge's Failure to Address all of Plaintiff's Claims 10 Second, Plaintiff argues that the magistrate judge erroneously excluded several of Plaintiff's specific claims from consideration. However, we find that the report and recommendation indicates the contrary. Although the judge chose only to address the specifics of three allegations, the judge concluded that each and every concern asserted by the plaintiff in the grievance forms has been adequately addressed by the Detention Center. The judge therefore did resolve all of Plaintiff's claims, although he did not necessarily address each one with specificity. 11 III. The Magistrate Judge's Deference to NCDC Officials 12 Third, Plaintiff argues that the magistrate judge should not have deferred to the NCDC officials because the correction facility was operating under a contempt order arising out of an unrelated action. We are not persuaded, however, that the abuse of discretion standard should be abrogated when a defendant penal institution is acting under a contempt order in an unrelated case. We also note that the magistrate judge reviewed Defendants' responses to each of Plaintiff's grievances and concluded that [t]he administrative procedure, in this case, has provided adequate, and in large part, favorable remedies to the plaintiff. Therefore, there is no need for intervention by the Courts.