Scott v. Beregovskay, et al.

Filing 53

ORDER STRIKING Plaintiff's 52 Objections to Answer signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 12/8/2020. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

TIANTE DION SCOTT,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
vs.

1:17-cv-01146-AWI-GSA-PC
ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S
OBJECTIONS TO ANSWER
(ECF No. 52.)

BEREGOVSKAY, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17
18
19
20
21

Tiante Dion Scott (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

22

with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

23

commencing this action on June 19, 2017, at the United States District Court for the Northern

24

District of California. (ECF No. 1.) On August 24, 2017, the case was transferred to this court.

25

(ECF No. 6.) The case now proceeds with Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint filed on

26

November 19, 2018, against defendants Olga Beregovskaya (MD), David Gines (MD), C. Agbasi

27

(LVN), and A. Armendarez (RN) (collectively, “Defendants”) for inadequate medical care in

28

violation of the Eighth Amendment. (ECF No. 25.)
1

Plaintiff filed the Complaint

1

On November 3, 2020, Defendants filed an answer to the complaint. (ECF No. 48.) On

2

December 7, 2020, Plaintiff filed objections to Defendants’ answer. (ECF No. 52.) However,

3

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide as follows, in pertinent part:
(a) Pleadings. Only these pleadings are allowed:

4
5

(1) a complaint;

6

(2) an answer to a complaint;

7

(3) an answer to a counterclaim designated as a counterclaim;

8

(4) an answer to a crossclaim;

9

(5) a third-party complaint;

10

(6) an answer to a third-party complaint; and

11

(7) if the court orders one, a reply to an answer.

12

Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a) (emphasis added). The court has not ordered Plaintiff to reply to Defendants ’

13

answer and declines to make such an order. Therefore, the objections will be stricken.

14
15

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s objections to Defendants ’
answer, filed on December 7, 2020, is STRICKEN from the record. 1

16
17
18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

December 8, 2020

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

A document which is “stricken” will not be considered by the Court for any purpose.
(Informational Order, ECF No. 8 at 2:7-8.)
1

2