Hernandez v. Washington et al
ORDER STRIKING Plaintiff's 23 Reply to Response to Motion, filed by Barbara Sampson, Lori Gidley, Jerome Warfield, Ivan Scott, Al Sanger, Heidi Washington.--Signed by Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti. (MWil)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Case No. 2:16-CV-10854
Judge David Lawson
Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti
HEIDI WASHINGTON, et al.,
ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S UNAUTHORIZED SUR-REPLY BRIEF
Plaintiff has filed a “Response to MDOC Defendants’ Reply Brief,” i.e., a
sur-reply. (DE 24.) The sur-reply is rejected by the Court for several reasons: (1)
E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(d)(1), which concerns briefs required and permitted, does not
permit the filing of a sur-reply; (2) Plaintiff did not seek permission to file a surreply, but, in any case, I would have denied such a request, as the Court has an
adequate record and the matter is already under advisement; and (3) my practice
guidelines, which are publicly available on the Court’s website, provide, in part:
“Additional briefing, including sur-replies, will NOT be permitted unless requested
by the Court. The Court will strike any improperly filed sur-replies or other
briefing not contemplated by the Local Rules.”
In accordance with this ruling, the Clerk of the Court SHALL strike
Plaintiffs’ November 3, 2016 filing. (DE 24.)
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 19, 2017
s/ Anthony P. Patti
Anthony P. Patti
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was sent to parties of record
on January 19, 2017, electronically and/or by U.S. Mail.
Case Manager for the
Honorable Anthony P. Patti
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?