Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Freeman v. West

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EAST ST. LOUIS DIVISION


February 12, 2009

GEOFFREY W. FREEMAN, #N-40858, PLAINTIFF,
v.
MARY WEST, R. BLAGOJEVICH, JAMES BAUERSACHS, ROGER W. WALKER, EUGENE MCADORY, SGT. HENRY, JAMES R. CHEATHAM, DOUGLAS A. CRAVENS, RANDOLPH COUNTY, ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, AND STEPHEN D. MOTE, DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Clifford J. Proud U. S. Magistrate Judge

ORDER

Before the Court is the defendants' motion to strike plaintiff's "Traverse to Defendant's [sic] Initial Motion for Summary Judgment" (Doc. 52) as an impermissible sur-reply. (Doc. 53). Also before the Court is plaintiff's motion to change the caption of his "traverse" to "Plaintiff's Supplemental Traverse to Defendant's [sic] Initial Motion for Summary Judgment." (Doc. 54).

A review of the record reveals that plaintiff initially filed a response to the defendants' motion for summary judgment, which plaintiff captioned as a traverse. (Doc. 48). The defendants filed a reply. (Doc. 49). Plaintiff then filed a second document, captioned "Traverse to Defendant's [sic] Initial Motion for Summary Judgment." (Doc. 52).

Local Rule 7.1(c) provides only for a single response to a motion, and clearly forbids sur-replies, regardless of how they are captioned. The first paragraph of what plaintiff now wants to characterize as a "supplemental traverse" clearly indicates that it is a sur-reply, responding to the defendants' reply, because it specifically references the September 2, 2008, reply. (Doc. 52, p. 1, ¶1).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED plaintiff's motion to change the caption of his "traverse" to "Plaintiff's Supplemental Traverse to Defendant's [sic] Initial Motion for Summary Judgment" (Doc. 54) is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defendants' motion to strike plaintiff's "Traverse to Defendant's [sic] Initial Motion for Summary Judgment" (Doc. 53) is GRANTED. Accordingly, the Clerk of Court shall STRIKE plaintiff's "Traverse to Defendant's [sic] Initial Motion for Summary Judgment" (Doc. 52).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20090212

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.