Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Murray v. City of Harriman

February 5, 2007

LORETTA MURRAY, ET AL, PLAINTIFFS,
v.
CITY OF HARRIMAN, ET AL, DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: H. Bruce Guyton United States Magistrate Judge

(PHILLIPS/GUYTON)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), the Rules of this Court, and by the Order [Doc. 87] of the Honorable Thomas W. Phillips, United States District Judge, for disposition of the following motion: Plaintiffs' Evidence in Support of Motion for Order of Protection [Doc. 99].

This Court must apply "less stringent standards" when evaluating whether a pro se pleading states a claim for which relief can be granted. Pilgrim v. Littlefield, 92 F.3d 413, 416 (6th Cir. 1996) (citing Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)); see also Wolfel v. United States, 711 F.2d 66, 67 (6th Cir. 1983) (noting that pro se litigants should be accorded a measure of leniency to assure "[t]hat meritorious claims will not be dismissed for inartful draftsmanship"). Accordingly, this Court construes Plaintiffs' Evidence in Support of Motion for Order of Protection [Doc. 99] as a Motion for Reconsideration of this Court's previous Order [Doc. 94], denying as moot Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion for an Order of Protection [Doc. 85].

Defendants' response [Doc. 101] demonstrates that Defendants also construed Plaintiffs' Motion [Doc. 99] as a motion for an order of protection. Defendants correctly noted that this Court previously ruled upon Plaintiffs' Motion for an Order of Protection [Doc. 94]. Defendants rightfully assert that Plaintiffs have failed to present any new evidence to the Court. Defendants' response also includes a request for costs incurred in defending Plaintiffs' Motion [Doc. 99].

As the Plaintiffs have failed to offer any new facts or law which would alter the previous ruling of this Court, Plaintiffs' Evidence in Support of Motion for Order of Protection [Doc. 99], which has been construed as a Motion for Reconsideration of this Court's previous Order [Doc. 94], is DENIED. Further, the Court reserves ruling on Defendants' request for an award of costs incurred in responding to Plaintiffs' Motion, pending completion of the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20070205

© 1992-2007 VersusLaw ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.