Curry, Daniel v. Trefz et al

Filing 38

ORDER that plaintiff's 36 response to answer will be placed in the court's file but will not be considered. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker on 12/6/2011. (jef),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
_________________________________________________________________________________________
DANIEL RYAN CURRY,
Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
11-cv-223-slc
REED TREFZ and DAVID GARDNER,
Defendants.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
In an order entered on October 21, 2011, plaintiff Daniel Curry was granted leave to proceed
in this action against defendants Reed Trefz and David Gardner.

On November 30, 2011,

defendants filed an answer to plaintiff's complaint, raising various affirmative defenses. Plaintiff has
filed a response to the answer and affirmative defenses, in which he replies to several factual
statements made in the answer and argues that some of the affirmative defenses are not valid.
Plaintiff does not need to be concerned: although defendants have raised certain affirmative
defenses in their answer, defendants have not actually filed a motion to dismiss. Therefore, plaintiff
does not need to reply to the answer. If defendants ever file an actual motion to dismiss, then
plaintiff will be allowed to respond to that motion. In the meantime, Rules 7(a) and 8(b)(6) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure work together to protect plaintiff from defendants’ claims in their
answer. Because of those rules, the court automatically assumes that plaintiff has denied the factual
statements and affirmative defenses raised in the answer.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff’s reply to the answer, dkt 36, will be placed in the court’s file
but will not be considered.

Entered this 6 th day of December, 2011.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
STEPHEN L. CROCKER
Magistrate Judge