Collins v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. et al

Filing 65

ORDER: The Motion to Strike 29 is Denied. The undersigned has previously submitted a Report and Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment be DENIED for Plaintiffs failure to comply with Local Rule 56.01(b). Docket No. 64. Therefore, the portion of the instant Motion to require a concise statement of facts is also DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge E. Clifton Knowles on 6/13/11. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(dt)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION

JIMMY L. COLLINS, JR.,
Plaintiff,

vs.

MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.,
et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 3:11-00264
JUDGE TRAUGER/KNOWLES

ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon a “Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary
Judgment or Require Concise Statement of Facts” (Docket No. 29), filed by Defendants Wilson
& Associates, PLLC, and Shellie Wallace. The pro se Plaintiff has filed a “response,” that
generally does not address the substance of the Motion. Docket No. 36.
Motions to Strike are governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f), which states:
The court may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or
any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter. The
court may act:
(1) on its own; or
(2) on motion made by a party either before
responding to the pleading or, if a response is not
allowed, within 21 days after being served with the
pleading.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) (emphasis added).

Motions to Strike are applicable only to pleadings. See Fox v. Michigan State Police
Dept., 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 5019 (6th Cir.) at **5-6; Wimberly v. Clark Controller Co., 364
F.2d 225, 227 (6th Cir. 1966). See also Lombard v. MCI Telecommunications Corp., 13 F. Supp.
2d 621, 625 (N.D. Ohio 1998); Hrubec v. National R.R. Passenger Corp., 829 F. Supp. 1502,
1506 (N.D. Ill. 1993).
For the foregoing reasons, the instant Motion to Strike (Docket No. 29) is DENIED.
The undersigned has previously submitted a Report and Recommendation recommending
that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment be DENIED for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with
Local Rule 56.01(b). Docket No. 64. Therefore, the portion of the instant Motion to require a
concise statement of facts is also DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

E. Clifton Knowles
United States Magistrate Judge

2