Brock v. Thompson

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION COREY WILFORD BROCK,

Plaintiff, Civil No. 2:21-CV-10585 HON. VICTORIA A. ROBERTS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE v.

THOMPSON,

Defendant, __________________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING THE MOTION TO ADD DEFENDANTS AND TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT (ECF No. 18) On May 19, 2021, the Court summarily denied Plaintiff’s civil rights complaint brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed two Notices of Appeal (ECF No. 15, 21). He also filed an amended complaint (ECF No. 17) and a Motion to Add Defendants and to Amend the Complaint. (ECF No. 18). For the reasons that follow, the Motion is DENIED. Because Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the Motion to Amend the Complaint; a notice of appeal generally “confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.” Marrese v. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, 470 U.S. 373, 379 (1985)(citing Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982)(per curiam)); See also Workman v. Tate, 958 F. 2d 164, 167 (6th Cir. 1992). See Hester v. Morgan, 52 F. App’x 220, 225 (6th Cir. 2002). The Motion to Add Defendants and to Amend the Complaint (ECF No. 18) is

DENIED.

s/ Victoria A. Roberts HON. VICTORIA A. ROBERTS United States District Judge DATED: 6/29/2021