Lewis v. Romulus, City of et al

Filing 66

ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF'S SUR-REPLY 59 Response (Free) filed by Taft R Lewis. Signed by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford. (MarW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
TAFT R. LEWIS,
Plaintiff,
v.

Civil Action No.: 14-13146
Honorable Matthew F. Leitman
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford

CITY OF ROMULUS/
ROMULUS POLICE
DEPARTMENT, et al.,
Defendants.
__________________________________/
ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S SURREPLY [59]
Plaintiff Taft Lewis, proceeding pro se, filed a reply to Defendants City
of Romulus, Romulus Police Department, Hussein Farhat, Tommy
Westhoff and 34th Judicial District Court of Michigan’s motions to dismiss.
[59]. A party has no right under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to file
a surreply brief. Jones v. Northcoast Behavioral Healthecare Sys., 84 Fed.
Appx. 597, 599 (6th Cir. 2003). While courts have discretion to permit such
a filing where reasonable, (Seay v. TVA, 339 F.3d 454, 480 (6th Cir. 2003),
such discretion is exercised upon motion of a party for leave to file a
supplemental brief, and Taft did not seek leave of this Court to file the
instant surreply. See e.g. LaSalle Nat’l Bank Ass’n v. Wonderland
Shopping Ctr. Venture Ltd. P’ship, 223 F. Supp. 2d 806, 808 n.1 (E.D.

Mich. 2002). Further, the Court finds that Defendants’ reply does not raise
new issues that were not raised in their original motion to dismiss such that
a supplemental response is warranted. Moreover, Taft’s surreply does no
more than simply re-argue the points he raised in his original response to
the various motions to dismiss. Therefore, the Court ORDERS that Taft’s
surreply [59] be STRICKEN.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 30, 2015
Detroit, Michigan

s/Elizabeth A. Stafford
ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD
United States Magistrate Judge

NOTICE TO PARTIES REGARDING OBJECTIONS
The parties’ attention is drawn to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), which
provides a period of fourteen (14) days from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order within which to file objections for consideration by the district
judge under 28 U.S. C. §636(b)(1).

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served
upon counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s ECF
System to their respective email or First Class U.S. mail addresses
disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on March 30, 2015.
s/Marlena Williams
MARLENA WILLIAMS
Case Manager
2