Mello v. Page, County

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION SUSAN H. MELLO, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Case No. 4:23-cv-01249-MTS ) SAM PAGE, COUNTY EXECUTIVE, ) et al., ) ) Defendants. ) MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend, Doc. [45], within which Plaintiff makes a plethora of requests and rehashes numerous portions of previous motions. The Court has reviewed both the Motion and the Memorandum in Support, Doc. [46], in full. The Motion is meritless. Indeed, portions of it approach frivolity.

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(1), (2). For this reason, the Court will deny the Motion— and will do so without requiring any briefing by Defendants. Cf. Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 (requiring that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “be construed, administered, and employed by the court and the parties to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding”); see also, e.g., Dougherty v. Leidos, 4:21-cv-01163-MTS, 2023 WL 111893, at *1 (E.D. Mo. Jan. 5, 2023); Conklin v. Kane, 1:13-cv-03058-JRS, 2014 WL 4411593, at *3 n.4 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 5, 2014), aff’d per curiam, 634 F. App’x 69 (3d Cir. 2015) (“[T]o avoid any further delay associated with briefing this frivolous motion, the Court has decided to rule on it without the benefit of a response.”). The Court reminds Plaintiff that, like every litigant in this Court, she is subject to the strictures of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b).

For these reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Amend, Doc. [45], is DENIED.

Dated this 29th day of November 2023. he dul Pe UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE -2-