Silva v. Sanders

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AT SEATTLE 7 RAMON SAUL SILVA, JR., CASE NO. 2:21-cv-00472-JHC 8 Plaintiff, ORDER 9 v. 10 BENJAMIN SANDERS, 11 Defendant. 12 13

14 This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Benjamin Sanders’s motion to strike 15 Plaintiff’s reply (Dkt. # 48). Plaintiff Ramon Saul Silva, Jr. objected to a report and 16 recommendation (Dkt. # 45), Defendant filed a response (Dkt. # 46), and Plaintiff filed a reply to 17 the response (Dkt. # 47). Defendant moves to strike the reply, arguing that this Court will not 18 consider such a reply under Local Civil Rule (LCR) 72(b). Plaintiff opposes the motion, 19 explaining that he is pro se in multiple cases and that he made a mistake (Dkt. # 49). LCR 72(b), 20 which addresses objections to a report and recommendation, states, “No reply will be 21 considered.” The Court thus GRANTS the motion to strike on that basis. See also Lambert v. 22 Dennis, No. C15-1213-RSM, 2016 WL 7441012, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 27, 2016), aff’d, 737 23 F. App’x 354 (9th Cir. 2018) (“The Court will not consider Plaintiff’s Reply”). 24 l The Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel of record and 2 || to any party appearing pro se at said party’s last known address. 3 Dated this 16th day of May, 2022. 4 ] obo Chur 5 John H. Chun United States District Judge 6 7 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24