Jones v. Bank of America, 2:18-cv-649-FtM-38UAM. (2019)
Court: District Court, M.D. Florida
Number: infdco20190226a42
Visitors: 11
Filed: Feb. 25, 2019
Latest Update: Feb. 25, 2019
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER 1 SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL , District Judge . Before the Court is Plaintiff Donald Jones' Motion/Objection to Magistrate Judge Carol Mirando's Malicious Order filed on January 30, 2019. (Doc. 44). Defendants Bank of America and Reverse Mortgage Solutions, Inc. have not responded, and the time to do so has expired. For the following reasons, Jones' objection is overruled. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(A), the Court may reconsider the magistrate judge's order on a pretr
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER 1 SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL , District Judge . Before the Court is Plaintiff Donald Jones' Motion/Objection to Magistrate Judge Carol Mirando's Malicious Order filed on January 30, 2019. (Doc. 44). Defendants Bank of America and Reverse Mortgage Solutions, Inc. have not responded, and the time to do so has expired. For the following reasons, Jones' objection is overruled. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(A), the Court may reconsider the magistrate judge's order on a pretri..
More
OPINION AND ORDER1
SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL, District Judge.
Before the Court is Plaintiff Donald Jones' Motion/Objection to Magistrate Judge Carol Mirando's Malicious Order filed on January 30, 2019. (Doc. 44). Defendants Bank of America and Reverse Mortgage Solutions, Inc. have not responded, and the time to do so has expired. For the following reasons, Jones' objection is overruled.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), the Court may reconsider the magistrate judge's order on a pretrial matter if shown that it was "clearly erroneous or contrary to law." This Court "may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Jones objects to a "malicious order" issued by Judge Mirando but, even liberally construing Plaintiff's motion, the Court is unable to identify which order he places under scrutiny. (Doc. 44). In particular, Jones does not state which order he finds clearly erroneous or contrary to law, and Plaintiff's statements do not correlate to any order on the docket. Because Plaintiff fails to show a matter that is clearly erroneous or contrary to law, his objection is overruled.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
Plaintiff Donald Jones' Motion to Judge Chappell Objection to Magistrate Judge Carol Mirando's Malicious Order (Doc. 44) is DENIED without prejudice.
DONE and ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. Disclaimer: Documents filed in CM/ECF may contain hyperlinks to other documents or websites. These hyperlinks are provided only for users' convenience. Users are cautioned that hyperlinked documents in CM/ECF are subject to PACER fees. By allowing hyperlinks to other websites, this Court does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on their websites. Likewise, the Court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their websites. The Court accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the Court.
Source: Leagle
