Lewis v. City of Southaven, Mississippi

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI OXFORD DIVISION

STEPHEN LEWIS PLAINTIFF

V. NO. 3:23-CV-336-DMB-RP

CITY OF SOUTHAVEN, MISSISSIPPI; and DETECTIVE WHITNEY WALLEY, in her official and individual capacity as a Southaven Police Department detective DEFENDANTS

ORDER

On February 12, 2024, Stephen Lewis filed a motion for summary judgment, Doc. #29, a memorandum brief in support, Doc. #30, and a document titled “Undisputed Material Facts,” Doc. #31. Neither this Court’s Local Rules nor the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure contemplate or authorize the filing of a separate statement of undisputed facts. L.U. Civ. R. 7(b); Fed. R. Civ. 56(c)(1); see Automation Design & Sols., Inc. v. Yeliseyev, No. 3:08-cv-589, 2012 WL 12974010, at *4 (S.D. Miss. Feb. 29, 2012) (statement of undisputed facts not required under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or Local Rules). Such a filing provides an avenue for circumventing the page limits imposed by the Local Rules. See Landrum v. Conseco Life Ins. Co., No. 1:12-cv-5, 2013 WL 6019303, at *15 (S.D. Miss. Nov. 13, 2013) (statement of facts deemed attempt to circumvent page limits). Because the contents of Lewis’ “Undisputed Material Facts” should have been incorporated in the memorandum brief1 he filed in support of his summary judgment motion,

1 Alternatively, to the extent Lewis intended the “Undisputed Material Facts” to be part of his summary judgment motion, the summary judgment motion then would violate Local Rule 7(b)(2)(B)’s four-page limit and would be stricken. Lewis’ “Undisputed Material Facts” [31] and memorandum brief [30] are STRICKEN and his motion for summary judgment [29] is DENIED without prejudice. SO ORDERED, this 14th day of February, 2024. /s/Debra M. Brown UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE