REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
RAY KENT, Magistrate Judge.
This is a pro se civil rights action brought by a state prisoner at a Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) facility pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Corizon Medical, Inc. ("Corizon"). This matter is now before the Court on plaintiff's motion to amend (ECF No. 10), Corizon's motion to dismiss (ECF No. 17), and plaintiff's motions to compel directed at Corizon (ECF No. 13) and non-party Keith Papendick, M.D. (ECF No. 22).
Plaintiff filed his complaint against Corizon, alleging that it was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs, i.e., treating mild anemia and denying a request for hemorrhoid surgery. See Compl. (ECF No. 1). A few days after the Court issued its case management order, plaintiff moved for leave to amend the complaint. The proposed amended complaint does not include any claims against the current defendant, Corizon. Rather, it names a new defendant, Keith Papendick, M.D. In his motion, plaintiff expressed his intent to change the name of the defendant from Corizon to Dr. Papendick, because the Dr. Papendick is "the individual responsible for making the medical decisions in Plaintiff's case." Motion to amend at PageID.10. Corizon did not oppose plaintiff's motion to amend. After plaintiff filed his motion to amend, Corizon filed its motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) on the ground that plaintiff did not plead "a claim of a policy, practice, or custom by Corizon that is allegedly unconstitutional" sufficient to satisfy the requirements in Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 663 (1978). Corizon Brief (ECF No. 17, PageID.93).
Plaintiff seeks to amend the complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), which provides that a party may amend its pleading with the opposing party's written consent or with leave of the court, which should be freely given "when justice so requires."
For the reasons set forth above, I respectfully recommend that plaintiff's motion to amend (ECF No. 10) be
ANY OBJECTIONS to this Report and Recommendation must be served and filed with the Clerk of the Court within fourteen (14) days after service of the report. All objections and responses to objections are governed by W.D. Mich. LCivR 72.3(b). Failure to serve and file written objections within the specified time waives the right to appeal the District Court's order. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).
Springs v. United States Department of Treasury, 567 Fed. Appx. 438, 442-43 (6th Cir. 2014). Here, Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1) does not apply because plaintiff did not file the proposed amended complaint within any of the three 21-day windows.