U.S. v. JEAN-CHARLES, 15-80055-Cr-ROSENBERG/HOPKINS. (2015)
Court: District Court, N.D. Florida
Number: infdco20151207c88
Visitors: 4
Filed: Dec. 02, 2015
Latest Update: Dec. 02, 2015
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON DEFENDANT'S PRO SE MOTION TO DISMISS (DE 102) and GOVERNMENT'S MOTION TO STRIKE (DE 112) JAMES M. HOPKINS , Magistrate Judge . THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon the District Court's referral (DE 175) of Defendant's pro se motion to dismiss (DE 102) and the Government's motion to strike (DE 112). The Government asserted in its motion that the pro se motion was filed contrary to the Local Rules since Defendant was represented. Counsel for Defendan
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON DEFENDANT'S PRO SE MOTION TO DISMISS (DE 102) and GOVERNMENT'S MOTION TO STRIKE (DE 112) JAMES M. HOPKINS , Magistrate Judge . THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon the District Court's referral (DE 175) of Defendant's pro se motion to dismiss (DE 102) and the Government's motion to strike (DE 112). The Government asserted in its motion that the pro se motion was filed contrary to the Local Rules since Defendant was represented. Counsel for Defendant..
More
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON DEFENDANT'S PRO SE MOTION TO DISMISS (DE 102) and GOVERNMENT'S MOTION TO STRIKE (DE 112)
JAMES M. HOPKINS, Magistrate Judge.
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon the District Court's referral (DE 175) of Defendant's pro se motion to dismiss (DE 102) and the Government's motion to strike (DE 112). The Government asserted in its motion that the pro se motion was filed contrary to the Local Rules since Defendant was represented. Counsel for Defendant has neither adopted the Defendant's pro se motion nor opoposed the Government's motion to strike.
For those reasons this Court RECOMMENDS that Defendant's pro se motion to dismiss (DE 102) be DENIED and the Government's motion to strike (DE 112) be GRANTED.
In view of the impending trial, a party shall serve and file written objections, if any, to this Report and Recommendation with the Honorable United States District Judge Robin L. Rosenberg, within one (1) day after being served with a copy, that is, by December 3, 2015. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Failure to file timely objections may limit the scope of appellate review of factual findings contained herein. See United States v. Warren, 687 F.2d 347, 348 (11th Cir.1982) cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1087 (1983).
Source: Leagle
