Filed: Jan. 18, 2019
Latest Update: Jan. 18, 2019
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER R. STEVEN WHALEN , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff William Calvin Hunt, a prison inmate in the custody of the Michigan Department of Corrections, has filed a pro se civil complaint naming as Defendants Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and two of its employees (the "Wal-Mart Defendants"), as well as Kenneth Toney, a Van Buren Township police officer. On June 29, 2018, Defendant Toney filed an answer with affirmative defenses [Doc. #12], and on November 29, 2018, the Wal-Mart Defendants
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER R. STEVEN WHALEN , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff William Calvin Hunt, a prison inmate in the custody of the Michigan Department of Corrections, has filed a pro se civil complaint naming as Defendants Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and two of its employees (the "Wal-Mart Defendants"), as well as Kenneth Toney, a Van Buren Township police officer. On June 29, 2018, Defendant Toney filed an answer with affirmative defenses [Doc. #12], and on November 29, 2018, the Wal-Mart Defendants ..
More
OPINION AND ORDER
R. STEVEN WHALEN, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff William Calvin Hunt, a prison inmate in the custody of the Michigan Department of Corrections, has filed a pro se civil complaint naming as Defendants Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and two of its employees (the "Wal-Mart Defendants"), as well as Kenneth Toney, a Van Buren Township police officer. On June 29, 2018, Defendant Toney filed an answer with affirmative defenses [Doc. #12], and on November 29, 2018, the Wal-Mart Defendants filed and answer with affirmative defenses [Doc. #20].1
On December 27, 2018, Plaintiff filed a letter that the Court construes as a motion to file a response to the Defendants' answers [Doc. #23]. On January 3, 2019, Plaintiff filed a response to Defendants' answer [Doc. #25].
Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 7(a)(7), a reply to an answer is to be filed only if the Court so orders. It appears that the Plaintiff is concerned because the affirmative defenses include failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. That issue, however, will be decided only if Defendants file an appropriate motion, to which the Plaintiff will have the opportunity to respond. Thus, there is no need for Plaintiff to file a response to the Defendants' answer.
Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion [Doc. #23] is DENIED, and Plaintiff's response to the Defendants' answer [Doc. #25] is STRICKEN.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. The delay in the Wal-Mart Defendants' answer occurred because they filed a motion for more definite statement [Doc. #9], which the Court denied on October 30, 2018 [Doc. #17].
