Mason v. Invision LLC et al

Filing 62

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants' Motion To Strike Plaintiff's Motion For Judgment In Accordance With Fed. R. Civ. P. 56, And Missouri State Rules of Civ. P. 74 (Docket No. 45) is granted. IT IS FURTHER OR DERED that plaintiff Harold B. Mason's Motion For Judgment In Accordance To Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 And Missouri State Rules Of Civ. P. 74 (Docket No. 43) is stricken from the record due to his failure to comply with E.D.Mo. L.R. 4.01(A) and 4.01(E). Striking 43 Pro Se Motion; Granting 45 Motion to Strike. Signed by Magistrate Judge Frederick R. Buckles on 1/4/2013. (NCL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
HAROLD B. MASON,
Plaintiff,
v.
INVISION LLC, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:11CV575 FRB

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Presently before the Court is defendants’ Motion To
Strike Plaintiff’s Motion For Judgment In Accordance With Fed. R.
Civ. P. 56, And Missouri State Rules of Civ. P. 74.
45).

(Docket No.

All matters are pending before the undersigned United States

Magistrate Judge, with consent of the parties, pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(c).
The instant motion is directed to plaintiff Harold B.
Mason’s Motion For Judgment In Accordance To Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 And
Missouri State Rules Of Civ. P. 74

(Docket No. 43).

As suggested

by its title and as noted by defendants in the instant motion to
strike, plaintiff’s Motion is a motion for summary judgment.

Also

as suggested by defendants, plaintiff’s Motion is the same as the
Motion he filed on August 11, 2011, which was stricken by the Court
on February 29, 2012.

In Docket Number 43, plaintiff again seeks

relief on claims of civil rights violations under Missouri law,
claims pursuant to a statute that does not exist, and claims which
have previously been dismissed by order of this Court dated May 24,
- 1 -

2011.

Plaintiff includes neither a memorandum in support of his

motion, nor a statement of uncontroverted material facts.
Because Plaintiff is a pro se litigant, the undersigned
holds his pleadings to a “less stringent [standard] than formal
Ellis v. Butler, 890 F.2d 1001,

pleadings drafted by lawyers.”

1003 (8th Cir. 1989) (citing Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520
(1972)).

Even so, plaintiff’s pro se status does not excuse him

from proceeding in accordance with procedural rules. See McNeil v.
United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993) (“[W]e have never suggested
that procedural rules

in ordinary civil litigation should be

interpreted so as to excuse mistakes by those who proceed without
counsel”).
The Local Rules of this Court require parties to file
with each motion a memorandum in support thereof.
4.01(A).

E.D.Mo. L.R.

With regard to motions for summary judgment, the Local

Rules further require that the memorandum in support to have
attached a statement of uncontroverted material facts, indicating
whether each fact is established by the record, and if so, the
appropriate citations.
filed

neither

a

E.D.Mo. L.R. 4.01(E).

supporting

memorandum

nor

Because plaintiff
a

statement

of

uncontroverted material facts, his motion fails to comply with the
Local

Rules

of

this

Court

regarding

filing

to

is

summary

judgment

motions.
Defendants
especially

so

motion

considering

that

strike

plaintiff

well-taken.
has

This

previously

is

been

advised of the requirements of the Local Rules of this Court and
- 2 -

the manner in which they apply to the filing of motions such as the
one subject to the instant Motion.
Therefore, due to plaintiff’s failure to follow the Local
Rules established by this Court,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants’ Motion To Strike
Plaintiff’s Motion For Judgment In Accordance With Fed. R. Civ. P.
56, And Missouri State Rules of Civ. P. 74 (Docket No. 45) is
granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff Harold B. Mason’s
Motion For Judgment In Accordance To Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 And
Missouri State Rules Of Civ. P. 74

(Docket No. 43) is stricken

from the record due to his failure to comply with E.D.Mo. L.R.
4.01(A) and 4.01(E).

_______________________________
Frederick R. Buckles
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Dated this 4th day of January, 2013.

- 3 -