Matthew v. Lahey et al
Filing
82
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 10/13/11 ordering plaintiff's 10/03/11 opposition 81 is disregarded. (Plummer, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
JOSEPH B. MATTHEWS,
Plaintiff,
11
vs.
12
13
No. 2:09-cv-2415 GEB KJN P
AMRICK BASI, M.D.,
Defendant.
14
ORDER
/
15
16
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action for relief
17
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On October 3, 2011, plaintiff filed an opposition to defendant’s
18
answer. Rule 7 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides as follows:
There shall be a complaint and an answer; a reply to a counterclaim
denominated as such; an answer to a cross-claim, if the answer contains a
cross-claim; a third-party complaint, if a person who was not an original
party is summoned under the provisions of Rule 14; and a third-party
answer, if a third-party complaint is served. No other pleading shall be
allowed, except that the court may order a reply to an answer or a thirdparty answer.
19
20
21
22
23
Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a) (emphasis added). The court has not ordered plaintiff to reply to defendants’
24
answer and declines to make such an order. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that
25
////
26
////
1
plaintiff’s October 3, 2011 opposition (dkt. no. 81) is disregarded.
2
DATED: October 13, 2011
3
_____________________________________
KENDALL J. NEWMAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
matt2415.77e
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?