UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA STATESBORO DIVISION

MICHAEL HENDRIX, ) Plaintiff, v. CV622-001 GATES PEED, BARCLAY BLACK, and RENATA NEWBILL JALLOW, ) ) ) Defendants. ) ORDER After a careful de novo review of the record in this case, the Court concurs with the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (R&R) of May 2, 2022, (doc. no. 14), to which objections have been filed, (doc. no. 15). Plaintiff's Objection does not identify any defect in the Magistrate Judge’s analysis. (See generally doc. no 15.) Accordingly, the R&R is ADOPTED and the objections ae OVERRULED. To the extent Plaintiff's objection renews his request for court-appointed counsel, his request is DENIED. (Doc. no. 15 at 2.) To the extent that Plaintiff's Objection seeks ‘tan extension of time and the option to [a]mend the Complaint,” (doc. no. 15 at 2), his request is futile. Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure’s liberal amendment provisions, courts should freely allow amendment. See Carter v. Broward Cty. Sheriff's Dep’t Med. Dep’t,

(11th Cir 2014) (citing Foman v. Davis,

(1962)); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). However, “[a] ... court may deny such leave where there is substantial ground for doing so, such as undue delay, bad faith, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party, and futility of the amendment.” Muhammad v. Sapp,

(1 1th

Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). An amendment is futile when the pleading that it seeks to amend would still be subject to dismissal if the amendment were permitted. See Coventry First, LLC v. McCarty,

(11th Cir. 2010). Further, “[a] motion for leave to amend should either set forth the substance of the proposed amendment or attach a copy of the proposed amendment.” Long v. Satz,

(11th Cir, 1999). Any attempt by Hendrix to amend his claims against Judge Peed and Chief A.D.A. Black would be futile because, as the Magistrate Judge explained, they are immune from suit for claims arising out of their respective judicial and prosecutorial acts. (See doc. no. 14 at 8-10.) Amending Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Jallow would be futile because, as the Magistrate Judge also explained, in her capacity as a public defender, she is not a state actor and cannot be sued under Section 1983. (See id. at 10-11.) Amending Plaintiffs Section 1983 claims for injunctive relief “overturn[ing] or revers[ing] this illegal conviction,” (doc. no. 1 at 14), would be futile because such claims must be pursued through a habeas petition. (See doc. no. 14 at 11-12.) Any attempt to amend Plaintiff's state-law tort claims would be futile because, in the absence of a viable federal claim, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them. See

(c)(3). Therefore, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs request for “‘an [e]xtension of time and the option to [a]Jmend the Complaint.” (Doc. no. 15 at 2.) Accordingly, Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED, and the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close this case. ORDER ENTERED at Augusta, Georgia, this 1 ay of May, 2022.

J. RANDAL HALL,CHIEF JUDGE UNITED/ STATES DISTRICT COURT ERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA