# Hill v. Chamber-Smith

> District Court, S.D. Ohio · March 12, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10384288

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, S.D. Ohio
- **Decided:** March 12, 2024
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10384288

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

TYRICE HILL, : Case No. 2:22-cv-03742
:
Plaintiff, : District Judge James L. Graham
: Magistrate Judge Caroline H. Gentry
vs. :
:
ANNETTE CHAMBERS-SMITH, et al.,
:
Defendants. :
:

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s “Opposition/Motion to Strike to
Defendant’s Answer Filed 2/20/24” (“Opposition,” Doc. No. 38). That document both
substantively responds to Defendant Chambers-Smith’s Answer to Third Amended
Complaint (Doc. No. 36) and moves to strike that Answer on the grounds that Defendant
Chambers-Smith’s defenses “are unsupported by any factual allegations and lack[]
plausibility.” (Doc. No. 38, PageID 675.)
As the Court has previously explained to Plaintiff (see Notation Order, Oct. 2,
2023; Notation Order, March 6, 2024), the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not
permit a response to an answer. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a) (“Only these pleadings are
allowed . . . ”). Accordingly, to the extent that Plaintiff’s Opposition substantively
responds to Defendant Chambers-Smith’s Answer, the Court will disregard that filing.
As to Plaintiff’s request that the Court strike Defendant Chambers-Smith’s
Answer, the “action of striking a pleading should be sparingly used by the courts.” Brown
& Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. U.S., 201 F.2d 819, 822 (6th Cir. 1953), quoted in
Anderson v. U.S., 39 F. App’x 132, 135 (6th Cir. 2002). The Sixth Circuit has cautioned
that this “drastic remedy” is “to be resorted to only when required for the purposes of

justice . . . [and] only when the pleading to be stricken has no possible relation to the
controversy.” Id. Here, Defendant Chamber-Smith’s Answer is clearly related to the
controversy and Plaintiff has not demonstrated that the interests of justice require that it
be stricken. Accordingly, to the extent that Plaintiff’s Opposition constitutes a Motion to
Strike, that Motion is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Caroline H. Gentry
Caroline H. Gentry
United States Magistrate Judge

Notice of Procedure on Objections
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), any party may serve and file specific, written
objections to the findings within FOURTEEN days after being served with this Order.
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d), this period is extended to SEVENTEEN days if this
Report is being served by one of the methods of service listed in Fed. R. Civ. P.
5(b)(2)(C), (D), or (F). Such objections shall specify the portions of the Order objected to
and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of the objections. If the
Order is based in whole or in part upon matters occurring of record at an oral hearing, the
objecting party shall promptly arrange for the transcription of the record, or such portions

of it as all parties may agree upon or the Magistrate Judge deems sufficient, unless the
assigned District Judge otherwise directs. A party may respond to another party’s
objections within FOURTEEN days after being served with a copy thereof.
Failure to make objections in accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on

appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947,
949-50 (6th Cir. 1981).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10384288. Public record. Not legal advice.