Irvin v. Clarksville Gas & Water Department et al

Filing 69

ORDER: The Plaintiff has filed a motion entitled "Plaintiff's Motion for Permission to Reply to Defendants' Motion for Permission to File a Reply" 65 . It appears that this actually is a reply in which the Plaintiff reiterates hi s case. As such, the Magistrate Judge will consider it. To the extent the Plaintiff objects to the Defendant filing a reply, the motion is overruled. To the extent the Plaintiff argues additional facts in his motion, the Magistrate Judge will consid er it. The Defendants have filed a motion for permission to file a revised reply 66 . This is a totally unnecessary motion. Thus, no motion was needed and they only needed to file the seven page reply. Both parties in this case are inundating the Co urt with unnecessary paper and making this case unnecessarily complex. There will be no more filings on this issue until the Magistrate Judge issues a report and recommendation and then both parties will have an opportunity, within 14 days, to object to whatever ruling the Magistrate Judge makes. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joe Brown on 2/2/12. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(dt)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
ROBERT THOMAS IRVIN,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff
v.
CLARKSVILLE GAS & WATER
DEPARTMENT, et al.,
Defendants

No. 3:11-0529
Judge Campbell/Brown

O R D E R
The

Plaintiff

has

filed

a

motion

entitled

“Plaintiff’s Motion for Permission to Reply to Defendants’ Motion
for Permission to File a Reply” (Docket Entry 65). It appears that
this actually is a reply in which the Plaintiff reiterates his
case.

As such, the Magistrate Judge will consider it.

However,

the Plaintiff cites Local Rules of the Davidson County Court. This
case is in federal court, and the federal rules and the local rules
of the federal court apply, state court procedural rules do not
apply.
Additionally, in the last line of his motion the Plaintiff
refers to “Exhibit 18 attached.”

There is no Exhibit 18.

To the extent the Plaintiff objects to the Defendant filing a
reply, the motion is overruled. To the extent the Plaintiff argues
additional facts in his motion, the Magistrate Judge will consider
it.
The Defendants have filed a motion for permission to file a
revised reply (Docket Entry 66).

This is a totally unnecessary

motion.

Had the Defendants carefully read the Magistrate Judge’s

previous order (Docket Entry 62) they would have noted that the
Magistrate Judge specifically authorized them to file a seven page
reply.

Thus, no motion was needed and they only needed to file the

seven page reply.
Both parties in this case are inundating the Court with
unnecessary paper and making this case unnecessarily complex.
There

will

be

no

more

filings

on

this

issue

until

the

Magistrate Judge issues a report and recommendation and then both
parties will have an opportunity, within 14 days, to object to
whatever ruling the Magistrate Judge makes.
It is so ORDERED.

/s/ Joe B. Brown
JOE B. BROWN
United States Magistrate Judge

2