Hamilton v. Clinton

S.D. Georgia

Hamilton v. Clinton

DecidedJune 3, 2022

Docket1:21-cv-00079

StatusUnknown

This text of Hamilton v. Clinton (Hamilton v. Clinton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hamilton v. Clinton, (S.D. Ga. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA AUGUSTA DIVISION JONATHAN HAMILTON, ) Plaintiff, v. CV 121-079 PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON, et. al., Defendant.

ORDER

After a careful, de novo review of the file, the Court concurs with the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, to which objections have been filed. (Doc. no. 36.) In addition to filing objections, Plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time to serve Defendants and a second motion to amend his complaint. (Doc. nos. 31, 32.) Although leave to amend under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) is generally given freely, Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962), leave is not guaranteed, and a trial court may deny such leave “in the exercise of its inherent power to manage the conduct of litigation before it.” Reese □□□ Herbert, 527 F.3d 1253, 1263 (11th Cir. 2008). “In making this determination, a court should consider whether there has been undue delay in filing, bad faith or dilatory motives, prejudice to the opposing parties, and the futility of the amendment.” Saewitz v. Lexington Ins. Co., 133 F. App’x 695, 699 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (quoting Foman, 371 U.S. at 182).

Plaintiff fails to show good cause for extending the period of service or granting leave of Court to amend the complaint for a second time. Thus, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs motions for an extension of time to serve Defendants and to file a second amended complaint. (Doc. nos. 31, 32.) Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff's objections, ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as its opinion, DISMISSES this case without prejudice, and CLOSES this civil action. Plaintiff's motion to expedite the case and his second motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, are therefore DENIED AS MOOT. (Doc. nos. ee SO ORDERED this a day of June, 2022, at Augusta, Georgia. Bey J, Vf 47 (hee STATES DISTRICT COURT O RN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA AUGUSTA DIVISION JONATHAN HAMILTON, ) Plaintiff, v. CV 121-079 PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON, et. al., Defendant.

ORDER

After a careful, de novo review of the file, the Court concurs with the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, to which objections have been filed. (Doc. no. 36.) In addition to filing objections, Plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time to serve Defendants and a second motion to amend his complaint. (Doc. nos. 31, 32.) Although leave to amend under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) is generally given freely, Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962), leave is not guaranteed, and a trial court may deny such leave “in the exercise of its inherent power to manage the conduct of litigation before it.” Reese □□□ Herbert, 527 F.3d 1253, 1263 (11th Cir. 2008). “In making this determination, a court should consider whether there has been undue delay in filing, bad faith or dilatory motives, prejudice to the opposing parties, and the futility of the amendment.” Saewitz v. Lexington Ins. Co., 133 F. App’x 695, 699 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (quoting Foman, 371 U.S. at 182).

Plaintiff fails to show good cause for extending the period of service or granting leave of Court to amend the complaint for a second time. Thus, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs motions for an extension of time to serve Defendants and to file a second amended complaint. (Doc. nos. 31, 32.) Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff's objections, ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as its opinion, DISMISSES this case without prejudice, and CLOSES this civil action. Plaintiff's motion to expedite the case and his second motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, are therefore DENIED AS MOOT. (Doc. nos. ee SO ORDERED this a day of June, 2022, at Augusta, Georgia. Bey J, Vf 47 (hee STATES DISTRICT COURT O RN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Hamilton v. Clinton, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hamilton-v-clinton-gasd-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack