Shareef v. Donahoe et al

Filing 48

ORDER denying 47 Motion to Strike. Plaintiff shall file a reply to 45 Response in Opposition. Plaintiff shall file a reply brief in support of her pending 42 MOTION for Case Reassignment. Replies due by 4/1/2013.. Signed by Magistrate Judge David Keesler on 3/19/2013. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(blf)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:11-CV-615-DCK
KIMBERLY F. SHAREEF,
Plaintiff,
v.
PATRICK R. DONAHOE,
Postmaster General, U.S. Postal Service,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on Plaintiff’s “Motion To Strike”
(Document No. 47) filed March 18, 2013. The parties have consented to Magistrate Judge
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), and immediate review of this motion is appropriate.
Having carefully considered the motion, the record, and applicable authority, the undersigned
will deny the motion.
By the instant motion, pro se Plaintiff Kimberly F. Shareef asserts that the “Federal
Defendant’s Response In Opposition To Plaintiff’s Request For Case Reassignment” (Document
No. 45) filed on March 8, 2013, was untimely and should be stricken. (Document No. 47). The
undersigned respectfully disagrees.
First, the Court observes that the Civil Docket For Case 3:11-cv-615-DCK, specifically
indicates, along with the entry for “Plaintiff’s Request For Case Reassignment” (Document No.
42) filed February 19, 2013, that responses to that motion were due by March 8, 2013.
Moreover, while Plaintiff correctly notes that Local Rule 7.1 (E) allows a party fourteen (14)
days to file a response, Plaintiff may not realize that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6 (d) allows
a party three (3) additional days for service of the response.

As such, it appears that Defendant’s response to “Plaintiff’s Request For Case
Reassignment” was timely filed and that Plaintiff’s allegations that Defendant has violated the
Local Rules and/or the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are without merit.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Motion To Strike” (Document No.
47) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file a reply brief in support of her
pending “…Request For Case Reassignment” (Document No. 42), and in response to “Federal
Defendant’s Response In Opposition To Plaintiff’s Request For Case Reassignment” (Document
No. 45), on or before April 1, 2013.
SO ORDERED.

Signed: March 19, 2013

2