Opinion
CASE NO: 8:10-cv-2085-T-26EAJ.
August 2, 2011
ORDER
Upon due consideration, it is ordered and adjudged that the pro se prisoner Plaintiff's two-page perfunctory Amended Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 55) is denied because it fails to conform to the requirements of Local Rule 3.01(a). Although the Eleventh Circuit has cautioned that pro se pleadings are to be held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys and are therefore to be liberally construed, see Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998), nevertheless, the Eleventh Circuit has also required pro se litigants to conform to procedural rules. See Moton v. Cowart, 631 F.3d 1337, 1341 n. 2 (11th Cir. 2011); accord Scruggs v. Adkinson, 2011 WL 1409364, *1 (11th Cir. Apr. 13, 2011) (unpublished). Furthermore, Plaintiff's Amended Motion for Summary Judgment is untimely inasmuch as this Court directed in an order entered March 23, 2011, at docket 33, that all motions for summary judgment were due to be filed by July 15, 2011.
DONE AND ORDERED at Tampa, Florida.