The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION
Case No. 5:24-CV-00462-M
SHANELLE MORRIS-WILKINS, )
Plaintiff,
V. ORDER
C. RAY JOYNER, et al.,
Defendants.
This matter comes before the court on Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Exceed Page Limit
Nunc Pro Tunc [DE 188]. On August 7, 2025, this court ordered that Plaintiff, who had filed a 75-
page objection to Magistrate Judge Numbers’ 26-page Memorandum and Recommendation (M&R),
comply with Local Civil Rule 72.4(b) by re-filing an objection within the confines of the rule. DE
182. Here, Plaintiff requests that the court accept her originally filed objection “due to the case’s
complexity (multiple defendants, intertwined constitutional and state-law issues, extensive state-
federal overlap).” The court is not persuaded; when it ordered that Plaintiff comply with the rule, the
court had taken into consideration the scope of the case and the matters raised in the M&R.
Nevertheless, while the court believes that Plaintiff could succinctly and clearly lodge her
objection(s) to the M&R within the ten-page limit set forth in the rule, the court will permit Plaintiff
to file an objection that is no longer than the M&R itself, which is 26 pages in length. Accordingly,
Plaintiff's motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Plaintiff shall file her revised
objection no later than September 2, 2025 (to which Defendants may respond no later than September
9, 2025).
In light of this order, Plaintiffs motions for leave to file “surreplies” to Defendants’ responses
to her original objection [DE 189, 190] are DENIED AS MOOT.
Furthermore, in light of Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend complaint filed on August 7,
2025 (DE 183), Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend complaint filed on July 21, 2025 [DE 174], to
which no proposed amended pleading is attached, is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The court
DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to correct the case docket by attaching the proposed amended
pleading filed at DE 185 to the motion at DE 183.
This court maintains “the right to summarily deny or refuse to consider any document not
filed in compliance with [this] order[] or the Local Rules.” McKiver v. Murphy-Brown LLC, No.
7:14-CV-180, 2018 WL 6606061, at *5 (E.D.N.C. Dec. 17, 2018).
SO ORDERED this _| oh day of August, 2025.
Owed CViave ca.
RICHARD E. MYERS II
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE