Opinion
1:23-CV-00268-RAL
07-16-2024
LORETTA SHEPARD, Plaintiff v. MICHELLE OVERMEYER, CAMBRIDGE SPRINGS SUPERINTENDENT; KIMBERLY DREISCHALICK, CORRECTIONS OFFICER; KELLY CLAYPOOLE, CORRECTIONS OFFICER; JAMES MORRIS, CORRECTIONS OFFICER; STEPHEN HAGGRITY, CORRECTIONS OFFICER; ALFONZIA NEWSOME, CORRECTIONS OFFICER; TANYA MAYO, CORRECTIONS OFFICER; RICHARD MIDDENDORF, CORRECTIONS OFFICER; EMBER BLINN, CORRECTIONS OFFICER; CAPTAIN ERIC BURNS, HEIDI DUGAN, ACTING CAPTAIN OF THE SECURITY OFFICE; AND SIMEON OBENG, ATTENDING PHYSICIAN, Defendants
ORDER
ECF NO. 51
RICHARD A. LANZILLO CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The Court is in receipt of correspondence from the Plaintiff, Loretta Shepard. See ECF No. 51. As was previously explained, the Court does not accept correspondence from litigants. See ECF No. 44 (text order dated June 7, 2024). All communication to the Court concerning this case must be in the form of a pleading, motion, or response to a motion unless otherwise directed. See Yazici v. MAC Parent LLC, 2024 WL 1558385, at *1 n.4 (W.D. Pa. Apr. 10, 2024). Any relief the Plaintiff seeks from the Court or any argument she wishes the Court to consider must be in the form of a motion or response. The Court will not consider arguments presented in correspondence.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Court notes that Plaintiff has requested an “update” on her case. See ECF 51, p. 1. Construing her correspondence as a motion for a case status update, the Court grants the motion and is enclosing a printed copy of the docket with this Order. Plaintiff's correspondence also references further instances of retaliation. Id. Unless presented in a proper motion to amend or supplement her Complaint, along with a proposed amended or supplemental complaint, the Court cannot consider these allegations.