Free Order on Motion to Amend/Correct - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :04-cv-01378-Gl\/IS Document 38 Filed 09/20/2005 Page 1 of 3 rl
I
I
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT I
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE I
SAAD M. SOLIMAN, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 04-1378 (GMS) I
)
I I
STANLEY TAYLOR, PAUL HOWARD, ) I
THOMAS CARROLL, LAWRENCE ) II
MCGUIGAN, JAMES LUPINETTI, ) F I L E D ll
DAVID E. PIERCE, JR., JOSEPH B. ) II
RICHARDSON, RONALD HOSTERMAN, ) ,_, . , ._ ,, ..
and STATE OF DELAWARE )
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, )
I U.S. DISTRICT COURT
Dcfendamsn ) - _ _ DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
ORDER I`
WHEREAS, on October 21, 2004, Saad M. Soliman ("S0liman") filed the above—captio d
Civil Rights action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985; H
WHEREAS, on December 14, 2004, the Delaware Department of Corrections filed a Mo IE.? n
to Dismiss/Summary Judgment Pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1), 12(b)(6), and 56(c) (D.I. 23);
I I
WHEREAS, on December 14, 2004, the individually-named defendants filed a Motio
Dismiss/Summary Judgment Pursuant to Rules l2(b)(1), 12(b)(6), and 56(c) (D.I. 25);
WHEREAS, on February 8, 2005, Soliman filed an Answering Brief to the Individ l
Defendants’ and Defendant State of Delaware Department of Correction’s Motions _o
Dismiss/Summary Judgment Pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1), 12(b)(6), and 56(c) (D.I. 32);
WHEREAS, on February 25, 2005, Soliman filed a Motion to Supplement the Record ( l`? .
I I
35), which asserts that factual discrepancies exist between an affidavit that Soliman tiled with
I-
I
5 I

Case 1:04-cv-01378-Gl\/IS Document 38 Filed 09/20/2005 Page 2 of 3 F
I
l
answering brief and the factual averments in the brief, due to his counse1’s inability to prop ly
communicate with him;
WHEREAS, the motion further asserts that the discrepancies necessitate a suppleme al
Soliman affidavit; I
WHEREAS, on February 28, 2005, the defendants filed a Joint Motion in Oppositio _to
Plaintiff’ s Motion to Supplement the Record (D.I. 26), contending that Soliman is attempting to ‘ et
the last word" by enlarging the record outside of the briefing schedule; |I
WHEREAS, the defendants also contend that Soliman’s motion to supplement was file |I in
violation of District of Delaware Local Rule 7.1.1 (1995); and II
WHEREAS, after having considered the parties’ submissions (D.1. 35, 36, 37), the c rt
concludes that Soliman’s motion was not filed in accordance with District of Delaware Local le
7.1.1, because Soliman’s counsel failed to file with the court, at the time he filed the motio a
statement showing that he has "made a reasonable effort to reach agreement with the oppos g
attorneys on the matters set forth in the motion;"I II
I
I
I
I
I
I District of Delaware Local Rule 7.1.1 (1995).
2 I

'
Case 1:04-cv-01378-Gl\/IS Document 38 Filed 09/20/2005 Page 3 of 3 L
IT is HEREBY ORDERED that: l
1. The plaintiffs Motion to Supplement the record (D.I. 35) is DENIED with ut
prejudice. H
2. The defendants’ Joint Motion in Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion to Supplement _ e
Record (D.I. 26) is DENIED as moot. :I
El i . " ` _ =»/‘;. E
Dated: September , 2005 __ .-:2
1
1
_l
l
l
m
l
_|
3 .§