Young v. Hodge et al

Filing 94

ORDER: Plaintiff's Motion In Opposition of defendant Steve Cernawsky's Answer to Complaint 93 is Denied. Signed by Magistrate Judge Juliet E. Griffin on 1/28/13. (xc:Pro se party by regular mail, (only).)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(dt)

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

SHANNON D. YOUNG
v.
REUBEN HODGE, et al.

)
)
)
)
)

NO: 3:12-0009

ORDER
The Plaintiff’s “motion in opposition of defendant Steve Cernawsky’s answer to complaint,”
(Docket Entry No. 93) is DENIED. Rule 7 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure does not permit
a party to file a reply or response to an answer unless ordered by the Court. No such order has been
issued in this action, and there is no need for the Plaintiff to file a reply or response to the
Defendant’s answer. The Plaintiff will be given the opportunity to submit written arguments and
evidence in support of his claims if the Defendant directly challenges the Plaintiff’s allegations
though a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment.
Any party desiring to appeal this Order may do so by filing a motion for review no later than
fourteen (14) days from the date this Order is served upon the party. The motion for review must
be accompanied by a brief or other pertinent documents to apprise the District Judge of the basis for
appeal. See Rule 72.02(b) of the Local Rules of Court.
The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Order to the plaintiff by regular, first class mail
(only).
So ORDERED.

JULIET GRIFFIN
United States Magistrate Judge