Wafer v. Suesberry et al
ORDER Striking Plaintiff's 83 Response to Defendant's Answer signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 05/29/2014. (Flores, E)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ANTHONY D. WAFER,
W. SUESBERRY, et al.,
ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S
RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S ANSWER
(ECF No. 83)
Plaintiff Anthony D. Wafer (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in
forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds
against Defendants Suesberry and Reynolds for failure to provide medication in violation of the
Eighth Amendment. On April 22, 2014, Defendant Reynolds answered Plaintiff’s complaint.
On May 27, 2014, Plaintiff filed a response to Defendant Reynolds’ answer. (ECF No. 83.)
In relevant part, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that there shall be a
complaint, an answer to a complaint, and, if the court orders one, a reply to an answer. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 7(a). The Court has not ordered a reply to Defendant Reynolds’ answer and declines to
make such an order. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s response to the answer is HEREBY STRICKEN
from the record.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
May 29, 2014
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?