Carre v. Nutton et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
SUSAN R. CARRE,
Plaintiff,
v.
COLETTE NUTTON, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 25-11628
Honorable Matthew F. Leitman
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT
NUTTON’S NOTICES OF JOINDER/CONCURRENCE
(ECF NO. 84)
Acting pro se, Plaintiff Susan R. Carre sues multiple defendants
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Honorable Matthew F. Leitman referred the
case to the undersigned for all pretrial matters under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
ECF No. 48.
After some defendants moved to dismiss Carre’s Second Amended
Complaint, Defendant Colette Nutton filed notices that she joins and
concurs in the motions filed by other defendants. ECF No. 76; ECF No. 80;
ECF No. 81. Carre moves to strike Nutton’s notices of joinder or
concurrence, but her arguments are frivolous and form-over-substance.
Case 2:25-cv-11628-MFL-EAS ECF No. 99, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/04/25 Page 1 of 4

2
For example, Carre claims that Nutton’s counsel has a pattern of
evading substantive responsive pleadings. ECF No. 84. But parties
routinely file notices of joinder or concurrence with another party’s
dispositive motion rather than filing a duplicative motion. 	In re West, No.
21-31047-JDA, 2022 WL 1309939, at *2-*3 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. May 2,
2022); Brown v. NL Indus., Inc., No. 06-10899, 2007 WL 1012797, at *1 n.1
(E.D. Mich. Mar. 31, 2007); Edwards v. Prasad, No. 15-11424, 2016 WL
7100492 (Dec. 6, 2016). Carre cites no authority stating that a party must
file a substantive motion rather than a joinder. Her argument that Nutton’s
timely filed notice of joinder and concurrence should be stricken because
she received it by mail the day after the filing deadline is equally baseless.
Carre also complains that Nutton did not seek concurrence, but as
Nutton noted, Carre denied concurrence to the original motion. ECF No.
76, PageID.1372, 1458-1459; ECF No. 78, PageID.1471; ECF No. 79,
PageID.1502. Requiring Nutton to seek concurrence separately would be
form over substance.
Finally, in her motion, Carre makes unpersuasive arguments about
the propriety of Nutton’s counsel’s representation and suggests that
counsel has engaged in unethical practices. ECF No. 84. Her arguments
Case 2:25-cv-11628-MFL-EAS ECF No. 99, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/04/25 Page 2 of 4

3
are irrelevant to the question of whether Nutton’s joinders and
concurrences were proper and are not well taken.
Thus, the Court DENIES Carre’s motion to strike.
s/Elizabeth A. Stafford
ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD
Dated: November 4, 2025 	United States Magistrate Judge
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.
Case 2:25-cv-11628-MFL-EAS ECF No. 99, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/04/25 Page 3 of 4

4
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 November 4, 2025.
s/Davon Allen
DAVON ALLEN
Case Manager
Case 2:25-cv-11628-MFL-EAS ECF No. 99, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/04/25 Page 4 of 4