McAdoo v. United States of America et al

Filing 56

ORDER striking 51 Response & 52 Sealed Exhibits; denying as moot 53 Motion to Restrict Exhibit 3, 54 Motion to Corrected Motion and 55 Motion for Extension of Time. Plaintiff shall have until July 10, 2013, to f ile a response to the Motions to Dismiss that complies with the prior Orders of this Court and the Local Rules of this Court. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis Howell on 06/26/2013. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(thh) Modified text on 6/27/2013 (ejb).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
1:12cv328
CARL E. MCADOO, EXECUTOR FOR )
THE ESTATE OF CHARLES RAFORD )
MCADOO, SENIOR, DECEASED,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., )
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________ )

ORDER

Pending before the Court are the Motions to Dismiss [# 48 & #50] filed by
Defendants. In response to these motions, Plaintiff filed a sixty-five page response
and attached numerous exhibits. The Local Rules of this Court limit a response
brief to twenty-five pages, and Plaintiff has not been granted leave of Court to file
a brief in excess of this limit. LCvR 7.1(D). Moreover, the Court previously
warned Plaintiff about attaching exhibits containing factual allegations. The
Court’s May 2, 2013, Order explained to Plaintiff that:
the Court will not consider any factual allegations raised for the first
time in a response to a motion to dismiss.
The Court will not
consider exhibits attached to a Memorandum in Opposition in ruling
on any motions to dismiss. Plaintiff should include any factual
allegations that form the basis of Plaintiff’s claims in the Complaint.
(Order, May 2, 2013, at p. 4.) In addition to spanning sixty-five pages, the
1

response contains numerous exhibits. Accordingly, the Court STRIKES the
Response [# 51] and the various exhibits filed by Plaintiff [# 51 & # 52] from the
record. The Court DENIES as moot the Motion to Restrict Exhibit 3 [# 53],
Corrected Motion [# 54], and the Defendant’s Motion for Extension of Time
[# 55]. Plaintiff shall have until July 10, 2013, to file a response to the Motions to
Dismiss that complies with the prior Orders of this Court and the Local Rules of
this Court.
Signed: June 26, 2013

2