was based, and “the original creditor[’]s last billing statement.” In the second and last sentence of the judge’s written disposition of the motion to dismiss, she concluded: “Defendant may receive the documents upon which [pjlaintiff relies in this matter in discovery, upon request by [defendant.” Although an attorney would understand, upon denial of the dismissal motion, that defendant was still required to file an answer and any affirmative defenses, it was not unreasonable for this pro se defendant to assume nothing further was required of him in light of the judge’s ruling on standing, and it was not unreasonable for defendant to assume from the order that the parties would thereafter engage in discovery. See Rubin v. Rubin, 188 N.J.Super. 155, 159, 457 A.2d 12 (App.Div.1982) (<HOLDING>). This circumstance formed a sound basis for
holding that although pro se litigants are entitled to liberal construction of their pleadings pro se litigants must follow procedural rules holding that although a pro se litigants pleadings are construed liberally a pro se litigant must still follow the same rules that govern other litigants including the requirement of constructing and supporting arguments with legal authority holding that rule 56f applies to pro se litigants holding that although pro se briefs are liberally construed even pro se litigants must brief arguments in order to preserve them recognizing that although pro se litigants are not entitled to greater rights than represented litigants due process principles permit the imposition of a procedural bar only after consideration of the pro se litigants reasonable expectations about what had occurred