Opinion
No. 08-12401.
February 16, 2010
ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant's Motion to Strike portions of Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law in Response to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket #27].
As an initial matter, the Court recognizes that Defendant is unrepresented by counsel. Therefore, his pleadings and arguments will not be held to the standard of a practicing attorney, but will be given a liberal construction. See Martin v. Overton, 391 F.3d 710, 712 (6th Cir. 2004), citing Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972); Herron v. Harrison, 203 F.3d 410, 414 (6th Cir. 2000) (pro se pleadings are held to "an especially liberal standard"); Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(f) ("All pleadings shall be so construed as to do substantial justice"). Whatever technical deficiencies might appear in Plaintiff's pleadings, the substance of his arguments should be assessed on their merits. If, for example, he makes statements that constitute hearsay, or are otherwise unsupported, those statements can be rejected.
That said, I note that I have filed a Report and Recommendation that Defendant's motion for summary judgment be granted. In preparing that Report and Recommendation, I fully considered all of Plaintiff's arguments and assertions of fact, and ultimately rejected his argument that there is a question of material fact regarding whether his termination was improperly based on racial considerations. Thus, Defendant's motion to strike is, as a practical matter, moot.
Therefore, the motion to strike [Docket #27] is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.