5:24-cv-00449•AMOS WESTMORELAND, JR v SERGEANT MARQUAVIOUS LOCKHART, et al
AMOS WESTMORELAND, JR v SERGEANT MARQUAVIOUS LOCKHART, et al
5:24-cv-00449GamdDec 11, 2025
Full text
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION AMOS WESTMORELAND, JR., : : Plaintiff, : Case No.: 5:24-cv-00449-MTT-CHW : V. : : Proceedings Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Sgt MARQUAVIOUS LOCKHART, : Before the U.S. Magistrate Judge : Defendant. : : ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiff Amos Westmoreland, Jr.’s motion to strike Defendant Lockhart’s answer. (Docs. 19, 20). Plaintiff seeks to strike portions of the answer that he contends are boilerplate, unsupported, or disingenuous. (Doc. 20). Plaintiff’s motion also suggests that the answer was untimely because it was “filed seven months after the Complaint and four months after court-ordered discovery began.” (Id., p. 1). Plaintiff’s motion is without merit. Plaintiff’s motion is denied for two reasons. First, Defendant’s answer was timely. Defendant had no obligation to respond to the complaint until he was served. Defendant waived service on June 16, 2025 (Doc. 14) and immediately moved for an extension of time to answer. (Doc. 15). The Court granted the motion and extended the Defendant’s time to respond to the complaint until July 7, 2025. (Doc. 16). Defendant timely filed his answer as directed. (Doc. 19). Second, there is no basis to sanction Defendant by striking his answer. Striking a pleading is a severe sanction that is warranted for litigation Case 5:24-cv-00449-MTT-CHW Document 23 Filed 12/11/25 Page 1 of 2
misconduct or upon a finding of bad faith. See, e.g., Royl Garage, LLC v. Mighty Oak Financial, LLC, 2025 WL 1914864 (N.D. Ga. July 1, 2025) (collecting cases explaining when imposition sanction is appropriate). Plaintiff’s motion and Defendant’s answer fail to demonstrate that such a severe sanction is warranted. Plaintiff’s motion to strike (Doc. 20) is therefore DENIED. SO ORDERED, this 11th day of December, 2025. s/ Charles H. Weigle_________ Charles H. Weigle United States Magistrate Judge Case 5:24-cv-00449-MTT-CHW Document 23 Filed 12/11/25 Page 2 of 2
Wondering how this text applies to your situation?
Free consultation, no commitment
Describe your situation. Our team will contact you by email about your consultation.
Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.