Corey Chrivia v. Katlin Reed, et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan
• Decided: December 4, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-11174
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

COREY CHRIVIA, Case No. 25-11174 Plaintiff, Honorable Denise Page Hood Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford v.

KATLIN REED, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE (ECF NO. 33)

Plaintiff Corey Chrivia, proceeding pro se, filed a sur-reply to defendants’ motion for summary judgment and defendants move to strike it. ECF No. 31; ECF No. 33. Chrivia did not respond to defendants’ motion to strike, even though the Court ordered him to do so. ECF No. 34. The general rule is that a non-moving party has no right to respond to a reply brief, and thus the applicable local rule does not allow for a sur- reply. Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Flowers, 513 F.3d 546, 553 (6th Cir. 2008); E.D. Mich. LR 7.1. Because the moving party is entitled to the last word on the matter, sur-replies are highly disfavored when the moving “party’s reply did not raise any new legal arguments or introduce new evidence.” Liberty Legal Found. v. Nat’l Democratic Party of the USA, Inc., 875 F. Supp. 2d 791, 797 (W.D. Tenn. 2012). Thus, the party wishing to file a sur-reply

must file a motion for leave that sets forth “good cause.” NCMIC Ins. Co. v. Smith, 375 F. Supp. 3d 831, 835 (S.D. Ohio 2019). Here, Chrivia has filed no motion for leave and his sur-reply does not

address any new argument raised in defendants’ reply brief. Thus, Chrivia has not shown good cause for filing a sur-reply. As such, the Court GRANTS defendants’ motion to strike (ECF No. 33) and ORDERS that Chrivia’s sur-reply be STRICKEN (ECF No. 31).

s/Elizabeth A. Stafford ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD Dated: December 4, 2025 United States Magistrate Judge

NOTICE TO PARTIES ABOUT OBJECTIONS

Within 14 days of being served with this order, any party may file objections with the assigned district judge. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). The district judge may sustain an objection only if the order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. § 636. “When an objection is filed to a magistrate judge’s ruling on a non-dispositive motion, the ruling remains in full force and effect unless and until it is stayed by the magistrate judge or a district judge.” E.D. Mich. LR 72.2.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that this document was served on counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s ECF System to their email or First Class U.S. mail addresses disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on December 4, 2025.

s/Davon Allen DAVON ALLEN Case Manager