Patrick Gregory Spainhour v. Jefferson Volunteer Fire Dept., et al.

• Court: District Court, S.D. West Virginia
• Decided: February 5, 2026
• Docket: 2:23-cv-00338
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA

CHARLESTON DIVISION

PATRICK GREGORY SPAINHOUR,

Plaintiff,

v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:23-cv-00338

JEFFERSON VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPT., et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Surreply, filed on January 6, 2026. (ECF No. 117). Therein, Plaintiff seeks leave to submit a surreply brief (ECF No. 117-1) in opposition to Defendants’ pending dispositive motion. Notably, Defendants did not oppose the motion. As another U.S. District Court within the Fourth Circuit noted, a court “in its discretion may allow a party to file a surreply.” Boland v. Amazon.com Sales, Inc., 628 F. Supp. 3d 595, 599 (D. Md. 2022) (citing EEOC v. Freeman, 961 F. Supp. 2d 783, 801 (D. Md. 2013), aff'd in part, 778 F.3d 463 (4th Cir. 2015)). This discretion is typically used in the interest of fairness to permit parties to respond to new matters raised for the first time in the opposing parties' reply briefs. Boland, 628 F. Supp. 3d at 599 (citing Khoury v. Meserve, 268 F. Supp. 2d 600, 605 (D. Md. 2003), aff'd, 85 Fed. App'x 960 (4th Cir. 2004)). However, courts have also used this discretion to permit pro-se parties to file surreplies even where no hew matters were raised in the reply brief. Boland, 628 F. Supp. 3d at 599 (citing Williams v. Bartee, Civ. No. CCB-10-935, 2011 WL 2842367, at *2 (D. Md. July 14, 2011), aff'd sub nont. Williams v. Merritt, 469 Fed. App'x 270 (4th Cir. 2012) (permitting pro se party to file surreply that does not address new material but also does not “unduly prejudice defendants”)). Courts have also permitted pro se parties to file surreplies where the opposing party has hot objected to the filing. Boland, 628 F. Supp. 3d at 599 (citing Zhang v. Sci. & Tech. Corp., 382 F. Supp. 2d 761, 767 (D. Md. 2005), aff'd, 174 Fed. App'x 177 (4th Cir. 2006)). Here, as in Boland, Defendants raised no new arguments in their reply brief, but rather “merely reiterated the legal arguments presented in [their] Motion and addressed the arguments that [Plaintiff] raised in his response.” Boland, 628 F. Supp. 3d at 599- 600. However, because Plaintiff is a pro-se party, and because Defendants have not objected to his motion, the Court is inclined to grant his request even though they address no new arguments. See id. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to File Surreply (ECF No. 117) is hereby GRANTED. IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to transmit a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented party. ENTERED: February 5, 2026

Dwane L. Tinsley —._ United States Magistrate Judge