Opinion

Butler v. Conger

Court
District Court, W.D. Tennessee
Filed
Sep 15, 2023
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 29.7%

The opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

EASTERN DIVISION

JEFFREY D. BUTLER, individually,

CLEMENTENE BUTLER, AINEISHA

BUTLER, and MALEIK BUTLER,

Individually,

Plaintiffs,

VS. No. 23-1054-STA-jay

MAYOR SCOTT CONGER, in his

Official capacity and individual capacity,

And the CITY OF JACKSON, MADISON

COUNTY, TENNESSEE,

Defendants.

ORDER AFFIRMING DECISION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE

STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S FILINGS

On August 30, 2023, the Magistrate Judge issued an order striking Plaintiff’s sur-replies

to Defendants’ motions to dismiss on the grounds that the Local Rules of this Court do not

provide for an automatic right to file a sur-reply and Plaintiff did not receive permission from the

Court to do so. (ECF No. 24.) Plaintiff has filed a timely appeal of the Magistrate Judge’s

decision (ECF No. 25), and Defendants have filed a response to Plaintiff’s appeal. (ECF No. 26.)

In considering an appeal of a Magistrate Judge’s ruling on a non-dispositive matter, such

as the one presently before the Court, the Court applies a “clearly erroneous or contrary to law”

standard of review. United States v. Curtis, 237 F.3d 598, 603 (6th Cir. 2001) (citing United

States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673 (1980)); accord Brown v. Wesley’s Quaker Maid, Inc., 771

F.2d 952, 954 (6th Cir. 1985) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(a)); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a)

(the district judge “must consider timely objections [to nondispositive pretrial orders of

magistrate judge] and modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is

contrary to law”). A finding is “clearly erroneous” when “‘the reviewing court on the entire

evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.’”

Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, North Carolina, 470 U.S. 564, 573 (1985) (quoting United

States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 396 (1948)).

Having reviewed the record and the controlling case law, the Court finds that the

Magistrate Judge’s order is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law, and his decision is,

therefore, AFFIRMED. If Plaintiff wants to file a sur-reply to Defendants’ motions to dismiss,

he must file a separate motion with an accompanying certificate of consultation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ S. Thomas Anderson

S. Thomas Anderson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Date: September 15, 2023

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.