Anderson v. City of Naples et al

Filing 53

ORDER denying 50 Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and for more Definite Statement for Failure to Follow Local Rules. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on 11/23/2010. (LMH)

Anderson v. City of Naples et al

Doc. 53

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION MICHAEL ANDERSON, Plaintiff, -vsCITY OF NAPLES; NAPLES POLICE DEPARTMENT; RALPH ANTHONY, Defendants. ______________________________________ ORDER This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and for more Definite Statement for Failure to Follow Local Rules (Doc. #50) filed on November 22, 2010. Plaintiff pro se Michael Anderson argues that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss should be striken because the Motion has been pending for more than 180 days and Defendant failed to inform the Court of this fact as required by Local Rule 3.01(h). The Court finds that in this case it would be improper to strike the Motion to Dismiss as the District Court is aware the Motion is pending and will rule on it in due course. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and for more Definite Statement for Failure to Follow Local Rules (Doc. #50) is DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this 23rd day of November, 2010. Case No. 2:10-cv-111-FtM-36SPC

Copies: All Parties of Record

Dockets.Justia.com