ORDER

BOYD N. BOLAND, Magistrate Judge.

This matter arises on the following motions:

1. Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. #24, filed 11/29/2012] (the "Motion to Strike"); and

2. The plaintiff's Motion to Expedite [Doc. #26, filed 04/15/2013].

The Motion to Strike is GRANTED, and the Motion to Expedite is DENIED.

Motion to Strike

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on September 26, 2012 [Doc. #17]. The plaintiff filed his response to the motion on October 10, 2012 [Doc. #20], and the defendants filed a reply in support of the motion on October 23, 2012 [Doc. #22]. On November 19, 2012, the plaintiff filed "Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. #23] (the "Sur-reply"). The local rules of this court provide that there shall be a motion, a response, and a reply. D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1C. Further briefing is not permitted without leave of court. The plaintiff has not sought leave to file a Sur-reply, nor does it appear that further briefing is necessary. Accordingly, the defendants' Motion to Strike is granted, and the Sur-reply is stricken.

Motion to Expedite

The plaintiff requests that the court enter a decision on the defendants' motion to dismiss. I have entered a separate Recommendation concerning the motion to dismiss. The plaintiff's Motion to Expedite is moot.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. #24] is GRANTED;

2. Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. #23] is STRICKEN; and

3. The plaintiff's Motion to Expedite [Doc. #26] is DENIED.