RULINGS ON MOTION TO CLARIFY and RULING MOTION TO DISREGARD MEMORANDUM

STEPHEN C. RIEDLINGER, Magistrate Judge.

By way of background, the plaintiff is currently confined at Tensas Detention Center, Waterproof, Louisiana. Plaintiff filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Louisiana State Penitentiary (hereafter "LSP") Warden Burl Cain, Maj. Bradley, Msgt. C. Hillburn, Msgt. Johnson, Msgt. C. Boudreaux, Mrs. Cora, EMT Diaz, Lt. Col. B. Baker, EMT Cunningham, Msgt. Cunningham, Msgt. B. Meredith, Capt. Smith and an unidentified Dr. John Doe, the LSP Medical Director. Plaintiff alleged that the defendants retaliated against him, verbally abused him, physically attacked him, issued him false disciplinary reports, subjected him to unconstitutional conditions of confinement, denied him mental health and medical treatment and destroyed his personal property. Plaintiff was granted leave to amend his complaint to add additional defendants and to clarify the capacity in which the defendants are sued.1 Defendants Warden Cain, Msgt. C. Hillburn, Msgt. C. Boudreaux and EMT Michelle Diaz filed a Motion to Dismiss.2

The following motions are addressed herein:

In the Motion to Clarify the plaintiff seeks to have two previously filed motions, Motion for Leave to Submit Particle Discovery (sic)3 and Motion for Leave to Submit Particle Discovery (sic),4 as supplying evidence in support of his claims rather than requests for discovery as the court had characterized them.5 Plaintiff attached numerous documents to those motions.

This motion is granted. Defendants are not required to further respond to either the plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Submit Particle Discovery (record document 35) or his Motion for Leave to Submit Particle Discovery (record document number 40). Should it become appropriate to consider evidence in support of the plaintiff's claims, the documents filed with those motions will be considered to the extent the court may do so under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

In the Motion to Disregard the plaintiff seeks to have the court disregard the Plaintiff's Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Name of Clerk of Court Employee.6

This motion is moot. The underling Motion for Leave for This Honorable Court to Compel This Honorable Court's Clerk of Court Ms./Mrs. Linda Her Full Name (sic) (record document number 60) was denied.7

Accordingly, the plaintiff's Motion for to Clarify and/or Restyle Plaintiff's Two Previous Motions Submitted As: Motion for Leave to Submit Particle Discovery (Record Document 35) and Motion for Leave to Submit Particle Discovery (Record Document Number 40), record document number 70, is granted, and the plaintiff's Motion for to Disregard Plaintiff's Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Name of Clerk of Court Employee, record document number 71, is denied as moot.