IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

DESMOND BONNER,

Plaintiff,

v. Civil Action 2:25-cv-394 Judge Michael H. Watson Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson

UNITED PARCEL SERVICE INC,

Defendant.

ORDER

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Reply to Defendant’s Answer is before the Court. (Doc. 11). Plaintiff filed a pro se Complaint on April 14, 2025. (Doc. 1). Defendant United Parcel Service, Inc. (“UPS”) filed its answer on May 12. (Doc. 7). A little over a month later, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking to file a reply to Defendant’s answer. (Doc. 11). As support, Plaintiff states that a reply is necessary “to aid the Court in understanding the disputed legal and factual issues, particularly as they relate to UPS’s reliance on after-acquired evidence.” (Id. at 2). His proposed reply includes “specific responses to [Defendant’s] affirmative defenses,” and a “clarification on caselaw and Plaintiff’s understanding.” (Id. at 4–5 (cleaned up)). A reply to a defendant’s answer is not a proper pleading under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7 unless ordered by the Court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a) (listing allowed pleadings)). In other words, “[b]y the plain language of the rule, a reply to an answer is not appropriate unless ordered by the court.” Fisher v. Cataldi, No. 1:16-cv-605,

, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 21, 2016) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a)(7)). Here, the Court did not order Plaintiff to file a reply to Defendant’s answer. Under the Federal Rules, a reply is not allowed. Plaintiff’s desires to respond to Defendant’s affirmative defenses and provide caselaw to support his claims are more appropriately brought before the Court in summary judgment briefing. For these reasons, the Motion is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: July 22, 2025 /s/ Kimberly A. Jolson KIMBERLY A. JOLSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE