Free Motion to Strike - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

, .......... .- . .A ---...L._.-.--......-..--......—.....--_..J4.—,...——,h-—.—..-.~—t.._.——-_.e.*..*..........
i I r Case 3:03-cv-00194-CFD Document 41 -2 Filed 06/27/20050 _1?a=ge/1?§ffBa6MSq/9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
? = FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT jr,.
I R rHoMAs E. TYNDALL, ) M5 M 27 A
a > e I I 5 I ss
~ , Plaintifi ) ;l,: rg.,
\ , _ ) E,-j,¤_.$,·,;;!; 4.,5,2.; _.·:e A a -
2 ` l V. - ) - Mf-
I _ ) I
l i Q NEW ENGLAND TEAMSTERS & TRUCKING )
I ` INDUSTRY PENSION FUND, ) Case No. 3:03cvl94(CFD) l
W DAVID W. LAUGHTON, PAUL V. WALSH, )
i ANTHONY S. BONPANE, GEORGE W. )
‘ I : CASHMAN, J. LEO BARRY, JOHN J. ` )
_ , · MCCARTHY, JR., WILLIAM M. VAUGHN III, ) _
i and J. DAWSON CUNNINGHAM, )
i i ) .
Defendants. )
l l MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAIN'IlIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE BOTH OF _
g DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FILED ON JULY 11, 2003 *
{ AND ON FEBRUARY 18, 2005. `
Z Q The reason the court should strike these two (2) motions for summary judgment is
because they were filed after the time allowed to file. The filing ofthe first (lst) motion for
summary judgment was filed two (2) months after the deadline set by the court rules, the filing of
I the summary judgment on February 18, 2005 is almost two (2) years after the deadline, last day
_ of May 2003. E
, ll Along with the striking of these summary judgments all memorandums, affidavits, and
· other pleadings connected with these summary judgments should be stricken from the records as
_ I having nothing to do with this instant lawsuit.
|._ In conclusion pro se plaintiff cites the final paragraph ofthe Notice to Council and Pro Se I
i
Parties: (

I ; A
,;

e h Case 3:03-cv-00194-CFD Document 41 -2 Filed 06/27/2005 Page 2 of 3
P
; l Counsel and Pro Se parties are further advised that they may request a referral of their case to a
. l `
I United States Magistrate Judge for disposition. See 28 U.S.C. 636 and rule 4 ofthe Local Rules
t g l
l for United States Magistrate Judges.
l At the hearing on March 4, 2005 the Court asked both parties if the Honorable Judge
l Thomas P. Smith would be agreeable to hear this instant case. Plaintiff was in the affirmative
l r
I then and also is now. Please anything to expedite this case, as the Plaintiff is not getting any
I younger, 77 and gaining. I =
y l
l ;
l
I l ‘
l l
l l J '
r t
r
i t 4
l;
it
l
J ~ 1
I ! t
y it

@ ll U 1_-
{ · ·· · I Case 3:03-cv-00194-CFD Document 41-2 Filed 06/27/2005 Page 3 of 3
Dated this @ day of June, 2005.
{ »_ · a {
{ { I
{ = Respectfully submitted,
{ By the Plaintiff; Pro—Se,
‘ { in/age
Thomas E. Tyndall
a {
l i
{ ~
E l
l
" 1 CERTIFICATE: OFESERVICE
{
{ { I, Thomas E. Tyndall, pro se plaintiff, certify that I caused a copy of the foregoing to be served
to the following by MAIL on June Q, 2005.
I
Thomas M. Brockett, Local Counsel for the Defendants I
{ Robert M. Cheverie & Associates, P.C.
333 East River Drive
East Hartford, CT 06108 I
_ United States District Court for the District of Connecticut
{ Q Abraham Ribicoff Building
` Main Street
Hartford, CT
/ lz
' Plaintiff Pro-Se,
in
ie
{ l` Thomas E. Tyndall // _
i
{ *2
u
N \ {
{ , ¤
ié _
{