From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Burton v. Kakani

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
Mar 30, 2011
CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-CV-10893 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 30, 2011)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-CV-10893.

March 30, 2011


ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF'S IMPERMISSIBLE SUR-REPLY (DOCKET NO. 59)


This matter comes before the Court on the Motion To Strike Plaintiff's Impermissible Sur-reply filed by Defendants Anil Prasad and Savithri Kakani. (Docket no. 59). Plaintiff has filed a response. (Docket no. 60). This matter has been referred for all pretrial matters. (Docket no. 7). The Court dispenses with oral argument on this motion pursuant to E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(f). Defendants' motion is now ready for ruling.

This is a civil rights action filed by a state prisoner pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law. Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on August 31, 2010 in accordance with the Court's Amended Scheduling Order. (Docket no. 52). Plaintiff filed a response on September 16, 2010. (Docket no. 55). Defendants filed a reply on September 30, 2010. (Docket no. 56). On October 13, 2010 Plaintiff filed a sur-reply with attached exhibits. (Docket number 57). Defendants now move for an Order striking Plaintiff's impermissible sur-reply. Plaintiff opposes the motion.

The local rules permit a party to file a single reply brief within fourteen days after service of the response. E.D. Mich. LR 7.1. The exhibits attached to Plaintiff's sur-reply are already part of the medical record filed under seal at docket number 54 and do not constitute new evidence. The Court will strike Plaintiff's reply brief entitled "Plaintiff, Kumal Burton, Reply To Defendants Response To Plaintiff's Response To Defendants' Motion For Summary Judgment Pursuant To F.R.C.P. 56 and/or Motion To Dismiss Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) Filed September 30, 2010 By Defendants." (Docket no. 57).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants Anil Prasad and Savithri Kakani's Motion To Strike Plaintiff's Impermissible Sur-reply (docket no. 59) is GRANTED.

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), the parties have a period of fourteen days from the date of this Order within which to file any written appeal to the District Judge as may be permissible under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Dated: March 30, 2011

PROOF OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of this Order was served upon Kumal Burton and Counsel of Record on this date.


Summaries of

Burton v. Kakani

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
Mar 30, 2011
CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-CV-10893 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 30, 2011)
Case details for

Burton v. Kakani

Case Details

Full title:KUMAL BURTON, Plaintiff, v. SAVITHRI KAKANI and ANIL PRASAD, Defendants

Court:United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

Date published: Mar 30, 2011

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-CV-10893 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 30, 2011)