Kuerbitz v. Bouchard et al

Filing 33

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S JUNE 21, 2024 "MOTION FOR OBJECTION AND TO STRIKE" (ECF NO. 25 ) AND CONSTRUING PLAINTIFF'S JUNE 21, 2024 "CONTRA MEMORANDUM" (ECF NO. 26 ) AS A RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS. Signed by Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti. (KBro)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ARNOLD KUERBITZ,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 2:24-CV-10774
District Judge Matthew F. Leitman
Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti

MICHAEL J. BOUCHARD, et al.,
Defendants.
___________________________________/
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S JUNE 21, 2024 “MOTION FOR
OBJECTION AND TO STRIKE” (ECF NO. 25) AND CONSTRUING
PLAINTIFF’S JUNE 21, 2024 “CONTRA MEMORANDUM” (ECF NO. 26)
AS A RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
On March 26, 2024, Plaintiff Arnold Kuerbitz, proceeding pro se, initiated
this action against Oakland County Sheriff Michael Bouchard, Oakland County
Prosecutor Karen McDonald, and various John and Jone Does, listed as unknown
Oakland County Sheriff Deputies, unknown Oakland County Health Department
workers/RNs, and unknown Assistant Oakland County Prosecutor(s). (ECF No.
1.) On May 6, 2024, Judge Matthew Leitman referred the matter to me for
“all pretrial proceedings, including a hearing and determination of all
non−dispositive matters pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and/or a report and
recommendation on all dispositive matters pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).”
(ECF No. 13.)

On May 16, 2024, Defendant Karen McDonald filed a motion to dismiss
(ECF No. 17.) Plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time to file a response,
which was granted. (ECF No. 21.) Plaintiff was given until June 28, 2024 to
respond to Defendant’s motion to dismiss. On June 21, 2024, Plaintiff filed the
instant “Motion for Objection and to Strike Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss” (ECF
No. 25), along with a “Contra Memorandum of Law” (ECF No. 26), and a “Sworn
Affidavit in Support” (ECF No. 27). All documents were submitted via the pro se
portal, and all three relate to Defendant’s motion to dismiss.
First, Plaintiff’s “Motion for Objection and to Strike Defendant’s Motion to
Dismiss” (ECF No. 25) is DENIED. Plaintiff has identified no valid reason to
strike Defendant’s motion to dismiss, and it appears more likely he simply wants
the Court to deny it. The proper manner to oppose a motion to dismiss is not with
a motion to strike, however, but with a response brief. See E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(c)(1)
(“A respondent opposing a motion must file a response, including a brief and
supporting documents then available.”)
In Plaintiff’s “Contra Memorandum of Law” (ECF No. 26), he sets forth the
reasons why he wants the Court to deny Defendant’s motion to dismiss and the
Court accordingly CONSTRUES the contra memorandum (ECF No. 26) as
Plaintiff’s response to Defendant’s motion to dismiss. Finally, Plaintiff has also
filed an affidavit in apparent support of the response brief. (ECF No. 27.) Plaintiff
2

is allowed only one response to Defendant’s motion to dismiss. E.D. Mich. LR
7.1(d)(1)(A) (“[E]ach motion and response to a motion must be accompanied by a
single brief.”). Having reviewed the affidavit, it appears that Plaintiff was
attempting to submit the affidavit as an exhibit to his response brief, and the Court
CONSTRUES it as such, rather than as an improper second response.
IT IS SO ORDERED. 1
Dated: September 24, 2024

s/Anthony P. Patti
Anthony P. Patti
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The attention of the parties is drawn to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), which provides a
period of fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this order within
which to file objections for consideration by the district judge under 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1).
3
1