Opinion
23-10863
06-06-2024
DWAYNE EDMOND WILSON, Plaintiff, v. JOSEPH, et al., Defendants.
SEAN F. COX CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF'S SUR-REPLY
CURTIS IVY, JR. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On June 3, 2024, the Defendants moved to strike Plaintiff's sur-reply. (ECF No. 53). Defendants previously filed motions for summary judgement on the basis of exhaustion. (ECF Nos. 25, 31). Plaintiff subsequently filed his response (ECF No. 47), and Defendants filed their reply (ECF No. 48). Plaintiff filed a sur-reply without first seeking leave to do so. (ECF No. 49).
Under the Local Rules of this District, a party may not file a sur-reply unless they have obtained leave of Court. E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(c)(3) (“A party must obtain leave of court to file more than one response to a motion for summary judgement.”). Plaintiff has already filed a response to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgement.
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion to Strike Sur-Reply and Plaintiff's sur-reply is STRICKEN from the record. Plaintiff should seek leave to file a sur-reply if that is still his intent. A motion for leave to do so should be filed on or before June 21, 2024.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
The parties here may object to and seek review of this Order, but are required to file any objections within 14 days of service as provided for in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) and Local Rule 72.1(d). A party may not assign as error any defect in this Order to which timely objection was not made. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a). Any objections are required to specify the part of the Order to which the party objects and state the basis of the objection. When an objection is filed to a magistrate judge's ruling on a non-dispositive motion, the ruling remains in effect unless it is stayed by the magistrate judge or a district judge. E.D. Mich. Local Rule 72.2.