JENNIFER COFFMAN, District Judge
On the court's own motion, the order entered on March 30, 2005, is amended to read as follows:
This matter is before the court on the motions of the plaintiff, Roger Roche, to continue the telephonic status conference scheduled for March 16, 2005 and to amend his complaint to add exhibits. The defendant, Home Depot, has no objections to the motion to continue but does object to the motions to amend. The plaintiff also moves for summary judgment in the closing paragraph of one of his motions to amend. The court, having reviewed the record and being otherwise sufficiently advised, will grant the motion to continue, deny the motions to amend, and deny the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.
Plaintiffs are permitted to amend their complaints when doing so will add new legal theories to the case. Motions to amend are not to be used as a means to supplement the record or to simply add exhibits; rather, motions to amend are appropriate only when the plaintiff seeks to amend the complaint so as to add a legal theory which changes the character of the case. Here, the plaintiff's motions seek only to add exhibits and consequently must be denied. The documents which plaintiff seeks to add as exhibits to his complaint may be offered as exhibits at trial, but amending the complaint to include them is unnecessary.
The plaintiff also moves for summary judgment in the final paragraph of one of his motions to amend. "Summary judgment is proper where there are no genuine issues of material fact in dispute and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Browning v. Levy, 283 F.3d 761, 769 (6th Cir. 2002) (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)). Since the plaintiff has failed to argue that no genuine issues of material fact exist, summary judgment is inappropriate at this time.
IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiff's motion to continue the telephonic status conference is GRANTED. The telephonic status conference is rescheduled for April 6, 2005, at 11:30 a.m.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff's motions to amend (DE 92-100) are DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment contained in his motion to amend (DE 98) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.