Dyson v. Donahoe et al, No. 2:2014cv00389 - Document 94 (N.D. Ind. 2016)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER: Court DENIES 88 Motion to Supplement Modified Verified Third Amended Complaint but FINDS that the exhibits attached to the instant motion at docket entry 88-1 have now been served on Defendant as a Rule 26 supplemental disclosure. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paul R Cherry on 8/2/2016. cc: Dyson (tc)

Download PDF
Dyson v. Donahoe et al Doc. 94 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA HAMMOND DIVISION DAVID R. DYSON, Plaintiff, ) ) ) v. ) ) MEGAN J. BRENNAN, sued in her official ) capacity as Post Master General, ) Defendant. ) CAUSE NO.: 2:14-CV-389-JD-PRC OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Supplement Modified Verified Third Amended Complaint [DE 88], filed by pro se Plaintiff David R. Dyson on July 12, 2016. Plaintiff asks the Court for leave to supplement his Third Amended Complaint with documentary evidence in support of his claim brought under Title VII in Count III. On July 14, 2016, the Defendant filed a response brief in opposition. Plaintiff has not filed a reply brief, and the time to do so has passed. Plaintiff offers no legal basis for supplementing a complaint with documentary support. However, as suggested by Defendant, it would be appropriate for Plaintiff to serve Defendant with those documents as part of his obligations under Rule 26. Defendant has offered to accept the exhibits attached to the instant motion at docket entry 88-1 as a supplement to Plaintiff’s initial disclosures. Accordingly, the Court hereby DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Supplement Modified Verified Third Amended Complaint [DE 88] but FINDS that the exhibits attached to the instant motion at docket entry 88-1 have now been served on Defendant as a Rule 26 supplemental disclosure. SO ORDERED this 2nd day of August, 2016. s/ Paul R. Cherry MAGISTRATE JUDGE PAUL R. CHERRY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT cc: Pro se Plaintiff Dockets.Justia.com

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.