STEPHAN M. VIDMAR
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT RODGERS' MOTION
TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF'S SURREREPLY TO MARTINEZ REPORT
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant Rodgers' Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Surreply to Martinez Report . . . [Doc. 69], filed on October 26, 2012. Plaintiff did not file a response to the Motion. The Court has considered the Motion and the relevant law. For the reasons set forth below, the Court FINDS that the Motion is well-taken and should be GRANTED.
Plaintiff filed his Prisoner's Civil Rights Complaint on January 20, 2010. [Doc. 1]. Defendant Rodgers was ordered to file a Martinez Report on September 13, 2011. [Doc. 30]. Defendant Rodgers filed his Martinez Report on October 7, 2011. [Doc. 32]. He requested that the Martinez Report be considered as a motion for summary judgment. Id. at 1. Plaintiff submitted a letter to the District Judge on November 29, 2011. [Doc. 35]. Since this was the only document filed by Plaintiff within the time period allowed for a response, and because it appears to address Rodgers' Martinez Report, the Court will treat the letter as Plaintiff's Response to the Martinez Report. Defendant Rodgers filed his Reply [Doc. 36] and a Notice of Completion of Briefing [Doc. 37] on November 14, 2011.
Nearly 11 months later, on October 18, 2012, Plaintiff filed an untitled document that appears to supplement the arguments he raised in his Response. See [Doc. 65]. Essentially, the document is a surreply filed without leave of Court. See D.N.M.LR-Civ. 7.4(b) (requiring leave of the Court to file a surreply). Although Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, he is required to follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants. See Murray v. City of Tahlequah, Okla., 312 F.3d 1196, 1199 n.3 (10th Cir. 2002).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Defendant Rodgers' Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Surreply to Martinez Report . . . [Doc. 69] is GRANTED, and Plaintiff's Surreply to Defendant Rodgers' Martinez Report [Doc. 65] is STRICKEN as filed in violation of D.N.M.LR-Civ. 7.4(a) and (b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
____________________
STEPHAN M. VIDMAR
United States Magistrate Judge