Taylor v. Wal-Mart

Filing 55

ORDER granting 53 Motion to Strike. Signed by Magistrate Judge Charmiane G. Claxton on 07/24/2018. (Claxton, Charmiane)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION

MESHA TAYLOR,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case 2:17-cv-02386

WAL-MART STORE EAST, L.P.,
Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE IN
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN OPPOSITION TO TOLL STATUTE
OF LIMITATIONS
Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition to
Defendant’s Motion in Opposition to Toll Statute of Limitations. (“Motion to Strike”) (Docket
Entry “D.E.” #53). Therein, Defendant asserts that Plaintiff’s “Response” filed at Docket Entry
#52 violates Rule 7.2(c) and this Court’s Scheduling Order and, in fact, constitutes a Reply to
Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff’s Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendations.
Upon review, Local Rule 7.2(c) only permits a reply to a response to the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation if leave of court has been given. No such leave was
requested or provided here. Additionally, the Court’s Scheduling Order prohibits the filing of
replies, except to motions filed pursuant to Rules 12(b)(6) or Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of

1

Civil Procedure, unless leave is requested and granted.
Defendant’s

1

Motion

to

Strike

is

well-taken

Accordingly, the Court finds that
and

should

be

GRANTED.1

In the Magistrate Judge’s July 24, 2018 Report and Recommendation on Plaintiff’s Motion to
Toll Statute of Limitations, the Court also concluded that this filing failed to comply with Local
Rule 7.2(c) and declined to consider it.
2

IT IS SO ORDERED this 24th day of July, 2018.
s/ Charmiane G. Claxton
CHARMIANE G. CLAXTON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3