LeMaitre v. Grindstaff

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ASHEVILLE DIVISION CIVIL CASE NO. 1:20-cv-00068-MR

WENDELL J. LEMAITRE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) O R D E R ) DONALD GRINDSTAFF, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) _______________________________ )

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Plaintiff’s pro se “Return Plaintiff’s Documents…” [Doc. 47]. The incarcerated Plaintiff filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, addressing incidents that allegedly occurred at the Mountain View Correctional Institution. The Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 34], and the Plaintiff filed a Response and materials in opposition to summary judgment totaling 233 pages [Doc. 40]. Summary judgment was granted and the case was closed on May 12, 2022. [Doc. 45]. An appeal is presently pending. [See Doc. 50]. The Plaintiff now asks that the Court send him a copy of his summary judgment response materials. [Doc. 47]. A litigant is ordinarily required to pay his own litigation expenses, even if he is indigent. See United States v. MacCollom, 426 U.S. 317, 321 (1976) (“The established rule is that the expenditure of public funds is proper only when authorized by Congress....”). The Court declines to provide the Plaintiff with a free copy of his voluminous summary judgment opposition materials. The Plaintiff may, however, pay for the copies he seeks at the standard rate of $.50 per page. See https://www.ncwd.uscourts.gov/court- fees. IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Plaintiffs pro se “Return Plaintiff's Documents...” [Doc. 47] is construed as a Motion and is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed: July 29, 2022

Martifi Reidinger ee Chief United States District Judge “AES