VanLeer v. Michigan, State of et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
BERNARION VANLEER,
Plaintiff,
v.
LAWRENCE MCKINNEY, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 25-cv-10861
Honorable Terrence G. Berg
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
STRIKE PLAINTIFF’S SUR-REPLY AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR ANOTHER SUR-REPLY
(ECF NOS. 30, 32)
Plaintiff Bernarion VanLeer, proceeding pro se, filed a sur-reply to
defendants’ motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 29. Defendants move
to strike the sur-reply. ECF No. 30.
The general rule is that a non-moving party has no right to respond to
a reply brief, and thus the applicable local rule does not allow for a sur-
reply. 	Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Flowers, 513 F.3d 546, 553 (6th Cir. 2008);
E.D. Mich. LR 7.1. Because the moving party is entitled to the last word on
the matter, sur-replies are highly disfavored when the moving “party’s reply
did not raise any new legal arguments or introduce new evidence.” 	Liberty
Case 2:25-cv-10861-TGB-EAS ECF No. 36, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/08/25 Page 1 of 3

2
Legal Found. v. Nat’l Democratic Party of the USA, Inc., 875 F. Supp. 2d
791, 797 (W.D. Tenn. 2012). Thus, the party wishing to file a sur-reply
must file a motion for leave that sets forth “good cause.” 	NCMIC Ins. Co. v.
Smith, 375 F. Supp. 3d 831, 835 (S.D. Ohio 2019)
Although VanLeer filed no motion for leave, good cause justifies filing
the sur-reply. Defendants’ reply attached an affidavit from a grievance
coordinator stating that VanLeer was never placed on modified access to
the grievance process. ECF No. 22, PageID.89; ECF No. 23. VanLeer’s
sur-reply repeats many of the same arguments already made in his other
filings but attaches a memorandum approving VanLeer’s placement on
modified status during the relevant period. ECF No. 29. Defendants are
not prejudiced by consideration of the sur-reply, as the Court has rejected
VanLeer’s argument that his placement on modified access rendered the
grievance process unavailable. As such, the Court DENIES defendants’
motion to strike (ECF No. 30).
VanLeer moves for leave to file another sur-reply or to take a
deposition to develop the record about his placement on modified access.
Because the Court considered VanLeer’s first sur-reply and assumed in its
report and recommendation that VanLeer was on modified access, another
Case 2:25-cv-10861-TGB-EAS ECF No. 36, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/08/25 Page 2 of 3

3
sur-reply is not warranted. Thus, his motion for leave to file another sur-
reply is DENIED. ECF No. 32.
s/Elizabeth A. Stafford
ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD
United States Magistrate Judge
Dated: December 8, 2025
NOTICE TO PARTIES ABOUT OBJECTIONS
Within 14 days of being served with this order, any party may file
objections with the assigned district judge. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). The
district judge may sustain an objection only if the order is clearly erroneous
or contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. § 636. 	“When an objection is filed to a
magistrate judge’s ruling on a non-dispositive motion, the ruling
remains in full force and effect unless and until it is stayed by the
magistrate judge or a district judge.” 	E.D. Mich. LR 72.2.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that this document was served on counsel
of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s ECF System to
their email or First Class U.S. mail addresses disclosed on the Notice of
Electronic Filing on December 8, 2025.
s/Davon Allen
DAVON ALLEN
Case Manager
Case 2:25-cv-10861-TGB-EAS ECF No. 36, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/08/25 Page 3 of 3