McCoy v. Edmeister et al

Filing 123

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, the Court advises the Plaintiff that if he wishes to appeal the judgment in this case or the order denying his motion to reconsider, he must file a notice of appeal in this Court within30 days of entry of the order denying his motion to reconsider. Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 12/14/2016. (jdh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
CHRISTOPHER H. MCCOY,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
vs.
ERIC T. EDMISTER, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-01379-JPG-DGW

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Reply (Doc. 122) to Defendants’
Response (Doc. 120) in Opposition of Plaintiff’s Motion (Doc. 119) for Reconsideration. This
Court ruled on plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration on November 30, 2016.

However,

according to the plaintiff, he did not receive defendant’s response until November 28, 2016 and
therefore, he had until December 12, 2016 in which to file a reply.
Local Rule 7.1 states that reply briefs are not favored and should be filed only in
exception circumstances.

Further, the party filing the reply brief is required to state the

exceptional circumstances within its reply.

Plaintiff’s reply fails to state an exceptional

circumstance and the Court would normally strike it for failing to comply with Local Rule 7.1(c).
However, given the delay in plaintiff’s receipt of the defendant’s response, the Court undertook a
review of the plaintiff’s response to determine whether there were any additional, relevant
arguments put forth that could have altered the determination of the Court with regard to
plaintiff’s motion to reconsider.

Page 1 of 2

There were none. Plaintiff restates the arguments he put forth in his initial motion and
focuses again on the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”)1 and the “mischaracterization” of
his complaint. He then argues that “by default” his Motion to Reconsider “would stand under a
Rule 60(B)(3) motion for a void judgement (sic)” but again, the arguments return to the APA.
The Court has reviewed the plaintiff’s reply in an abundance of caution to ensure that the
plaintiff’s arguments were reviewed and considered. However, the Court finds no basis to sua
sponte change its determination with regard to Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider based on
plaintiff’s reply.
Again, the Court advises the Plaintiff that if he wishes to appeal the judgment in this case
or the order denying his motion to reconsider, he must file a notice of appeal in this Court within
30 days of entry of the order denying his motion to reconsider, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A),
(a)(4)(A) & (a)(4)(B)(ii), or within any extension of that deadline authorized by the Court, Fed.
R. App. P. 4(a)(5).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: 12/14/2016
s/J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
DISTRICT JUDGE

1

Plaintiff’s claims under the Administrative Procedures Act did not survive threshold review. See
Memorandum and Order (Doc. 10).

Page 2 of 2