Wafer v. Suesberry et al

Filing 85

ORDER Striking Plaintiff's 83 Response to Defendant's Answer signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 05/29/2014. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8
9

ANTHONY D. WAFER,

10
11
12

Plaintiff,
v.
W. SUESBERRY, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:07-cv-00865-AWI-BAM (PC)
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

16

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds

17

against Defendants Suesberry and Reynolds for failure to provide medication in violation of the

18

Eighth Amendment. On April 22, 2014, Defendant Reynolds answered Plaintiff’s complaint.

19

On May 27, 2014, Plaintiff filed a response to Defendant Reynolds’ answer. (ECF No. 83.)

20

In relevant part, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that there shall be a

21

complaint, an answer to a complaint, and, if the court orders one, a reply to an answer. Fed. R.

22

Civ. P. 7(a). The Court has not ordered a reply to Defendant Reynolds’ answer and declines to

23

make such an order. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s response to the answer is HEREBY STRICKEN

24

from the record.

25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26

Dated:

/s/ Barbara

May 29, 2014

27

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

28

1