KARWEL v. CITY OF PALM BAY, 6:15-cv-597-Orl-37KRS. (2015)
Court: District Court, M.D. Florida
Number: infdco20150507b01
Visitors: 8
Filed: May 06, 2015
Latest Update: May 06, 2015
Summary: ORDER ROY B. DALTON, Jr. , District Judge . Today, the Court is called upon to evaluate the legal sufficiency of the Plaintiff's pro se Complaint (Doc. 1) in the context of a "Reply to Report and Recommendation" (Doc. 8), which the Court construes as a Rule 72(a) objection to Magistrate Judge Spaulding's Report and Recommendation ("R&R") that the pleading be stricken (Doc. 5). Unfortunately for Plaintiff, typing her objections in all caps or in bold font ( see Doc. 8) does little to addre
Summary: ORDER ROY B. DALTON, Jr. , District Judge . Today, the Court is called upon to evaluate the legal sufficiency of the Plaintiff's pro se Complaint (Doc. 1) in the context of a "Reply to Report and Recommendation" (Doc. 8), which the Court construes as a Rule 72(a) objection to Magistrate Judge Spaulding's Report and Recommendation ("R&R") that the pleading be stricken (Doc. 5). Unfortunately for Plaintiff, typing her objections in all caps or in bold font ( see Doc. 8) does little to addres..
More
ORDER
ROY B. DALTON, Jr., District Judge.
Today, the Court is called upon to evaluate the legal sufficiency of the Plaintiff's pro se Complaint (Doc. 1) in the context of a "Reply to Report and Recommendation" (Doc. 8), which the Court construes as a Rule 72(a) objection to Magistrate Judge Spaulding's Report and Recommendation ("R&R") that the pleading be stricken (Doc. 5).
Unfortunately for Plaintiff, typing her objections in all caps or in bold font (see Doc. 8) does little to address the pleading deficiencies so glaringly apparent in her Complaint (see Doc. 1). Shouting does not alter the legal landscape. At bottom, rather than reviewing the R&R's cited legal authorities and accepting its well-intentioned explanation of her pleading's inadequacies, or rather than providing any legal authority in opposition to the R&R, Plaintiff simply expresses her contrary view. (See Doc. 8.)
Plaintiff's Complaint is deficient for the reasons addressed in the R&R. (See Doc. 5.) Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
1. Magistrate Judge Spaulding's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 5) is ADOPTED and CONFIRMED and made a part of this Order.
2. Plaintiff's Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Doc. 2) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
3. The Clerk is DIRECTED to STRIKE Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 1) from the docket.
4. On or before Friday, May 22, 2015, Plaintiff may file: (1) an amended complaint that resolves the deficiencies addressed in the R&R; and (2) an amended application to proceed without prepayment of costs or fees. Failure to timely file either of those documents may result in dismissal of this action without further notice. The Court encourages Plaintiff to visit the Middle District of Florida's website for helpful advice on proceeding without a lawyer,1 bearing in mind that pro se litigants remain "subject to the relevant law and rules of court, including the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure." Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989).
DONE AND ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. The Court's online pro se portal is available at:
https://www.flmd.uscourts.gov/pro_se/default.htm
Source: Leagle
