Lee v. Cornersville Police Department et al

Filing 42

ORDER: The Motion to Exclude a Response or for Leave to File a Reply 41 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The Court will not strike the Plaintiff's response and memorandum of law 37 and 38 . The Magistrate Judge will grant the Defendants' request to file a reply, and the Clerk will file the proposed reply attached as Exhibit 1 to 41 . Signed by Magistrate Judge Joe Brown on 8/17/11. (dt)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
JASON D. LEE,
Plaintiff
v.
CITY OF CORNERSVILLE, et al.,
Defendants

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:10-0071
Magistrate Judge Brown

O R D E R
Presently pending is the Defendants’ motion to exclude a
response or for leave to file a reply (Docket Entry 41).
motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

This

The Court will not

strike the Plaintiff’s response and memorandum of law (Docket
Entries 37 and 38).1
The Magistrate Judge will grant the Defendants’ request
to file a reply, and the Clerk will file the proposed reply
attached as Exhibit 1 to Docket Entry 41.
It is so ORDERED.
/s/ Joe B. Brown
JOE B. BROWN
United States Magistrate Judge

1

The Magistrate Judge, however, does not condone the belatedly
filing of a response to the motion to dismiss (Docket Entry 34).
Nevertheless, cases should be tried on their merits and the Magistrate
Judge will consider the response, although again, the Magistrate Judge
notes that in general responses to dismiss are limited to the record and
pending motions to dismiss are not motions for summary judgment.