Silva v. Sanders

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AT SEATTLE RAMON SAUL SILVA, JR., CASE NO. 2:21-cv-00472-JHC Plaintiff, ORDER v. BENJAMIN SANDERS, Defendant.

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Benjamin Sanders’s motion to strike Plaintiff’s reply (Dkt. # 48). Plaintiff Ramon Saul Silva, Jr. objected to a report and recommendation (Dkt. # 45), Defendant filed a response (Dkt. # 46), and Plaintiff filed a reply to the response (Dkt. # 47). Defendant moves to strike the reply, arguing that this Court will not consider such a reply under Local Civil Rule (LCR) 72(b). Plaintiff opposes the motion, explaining that he is pro se in multiple cases and that he made a mistake (Dkt. # 49). LCR 72(b), which addresses objections to a report and recommendation, states, “No reply will be considered.” The Court thus GRANTS the motion to strike on that basis. See also Lambert v. Dennis, No. C15-1213-RSM, 2016 WL 7441012, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 27, 2016), aff’d, 737 F. App’x 354 (9th Cir. 2018) (“The Court will not consider Plaintiff’s Reply”). l The Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel of record and to any party appearing pro se at said party’s last known address. Dated this 16th day of May, 2022. ] obo Chur John H. Chun United States District Judge 1]