Sajeesh Kumar Kamala Raghavan v. Remmia Sukapurath, Leah Lloyd Hillis, Barbara McCullough, Carol J. Chumney, and Shelby County, Tennessee

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee denied Plaintiff Sajeesh Kumar Kamala Raghavan’s motion to consolidate dispositive filings and compel unified responses from the defendants. The court also disregarded Raghavan’s purported objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation because no such report and recommendation had been issued in the case, and it declined to consider his unauthorized and untimely reply.

Holdings

1. The court will not consider a reply memorandum filed without leave of court, and a pro se litigant remains subject to the applicable Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules.
2. The court denied the motion to compel consolidated responses because each defendant may choose whether to proceed jointly or individually, and the plaintiff may not dictate how defendants defend against his claims.
3. The court disregarded the purported objections and supporting affidavit because no magistrate judge's report and recommendation had been issued in the case.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the court should require the defendants to consolidate their dispositive filings and file unified responses.
2. Whether the court should consider the plaintiff's reply filed without leave of court.
3. Whether the court should consider purported objections to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation when no such report and recommendation had been issued in the case.

Disposition

other