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

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 misconduct or upon a finding of bad faith. See, e.g., Royl Garage, LLC v. Mighty Oak Financial, LLC,

(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