Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:04-CV-1101.
June 5, 2007
ORDER
AND NOW, this 5th day of June, 2007, upon consideration of the legion of motions (Docs. 204-213) filed by plaintiff on May 30, 2007, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's motions for leave to file (Docs. 204, 206, 208, 210, 212) are GRANTED.
2. Plaintiff's motion for an enlargement of time (Doc. 205) is DENIED. Plaintiff shall respond to defendants' motion for summary judgment (Doc. 178) in accordance with Local Rules of Court, see L.R. 56.1, on or before June 12, 2007. Failure to comply with this order will result in the motion being deemed unopposed, see L.R. 7.6; see also Stackhouse v. Mazurkiewicz, 951 F.2d 29 (3d Cir. 1991), and plaintiff's action will be dismissed for failure to comply with an order of court pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b)(2).
3. The Clerk of Court is directed to STRIKE plaintiff's "motion in opposition to this court's continuing lies . . ." (Doc. 207) as a result of its profane, impertinent and scandalous content.
4. Plaintiff's "motion in opposition to defendants' brief in opposition to plaintiff's motion for civil suspension" (Doc. 208) is construed as a reply to defendants' brief in opposition to plaintiff's motion for civil suspension. The court has reviewed the brief and has concluded that there is nothing in the document that would cause the court to alter its decision (Doc. 202) to deny the motion for civil suspension.
5. Plaintiff's motion to strike (Doc. 211) the declaration of David L. Grainey is DENIED.
6. Plaintiff's "motion for claim(s) for relief" (Doc. 213) is DENIED without prejudice to plaintiff's right to file a new civil action pleading the claims for relief contained in his motion.
Defendants' motion and supporting documents were filed in December 2006. (Docs. 178-180, 182-184).