Opinion
24-11002
12-18-2024
ANTHONY P. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, ANN MARIE GARRITANO, CHAD SCHILLER, GINNY L. CREASMAN, Defendants.
ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT [24] AND PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS [33]
LAURIE J. MICHELSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Anthony Williams filed a complaint alleging he was victimized at the Ann Arbor VA medical center. (ECF No. 1.) About a week later, he filed an amended complaint adding two defendants. (ECF No. 6.) The government filed a motion for more definite statement seeking “one unified, stand-alone complaint that meets pleading requirements and contains all of [Williams'] claims and supporting facts in one document.” (ECF No. 24, PageID.79; ECF No. 30, PageID.112.) Williams responded to the motion. He did not believe the government complied with this District's Local Rules 5.1 and 7.1, but as to the merits, he advised that, “out of fairness [he] would concur to Leave to Amend to alleviate any claim moving forward in all fairness.” (ECF No. 28, PageID.105.) Williams also filed a motion for sanctions for the perceived technical violations. (ECF No. 33.)
After the motions were briefed, the Court conducted a hearing on December 18, 2024. Williams confirmed his willingness to amend the complaint and the Court explained why sanctions were not warranted.
Thus, for the reasons stated more fully on the record during the hearing, the government's motion for more definite statement (ECF No. 24) is DISMISSED AS MOOT given Williams' agreement to amend the complaint, and Williams' motion for sanctions (ECF No. 33) is DENIED as unwarranted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.