SIZEMORE
v.
JUDGE MICHAEL ORFINGER
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court denied the plaintiff's request for reconsideration of a report and recommendation, as such a request is not the proper procedural mechanism.
Plaintiff filed a request for reconsideration of a prior report and recommendation regarding motions to dismiss. The court noted that a report and rec…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Objections To Report And Recommendation cases and more on FLexlaw
On March 3, 2025, the undersigned issued a report and recommendation regarding disposition of four motions to dismiss filed by Defendants. Doc. No. 61. Now before the Court is Plaintiff's Request for Reconsideration, in which Plaintiff asks the Court to reconsider its March 3, 2025 "Order" pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59. Doc. No. 62. Plaintiff's Request for Reconsideration has been referred to the undersigned.
Upon consideration, to the extent that Plaintiff requests reconsideration of the report and recommendation, the request (Doc. No. 62) will be DENIED, as the report and recommendation is not a final order, but rather a recommendation, to which Plaintiff would appropriately address objections rather than a request for reconsideration. See Doc. No. 61, at 25 (citing 11 Cir. R. 3-1). See also Farrell v. GMAC Mortg., No. 2:13-cv-140-FtM-29DNF, 2014 WL 12617441, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 5, 2014) ("The Court finds that reconsideration is not the appropriate avenue to dispute the Report and Recommendation.").
It instead appears that Plaintiff wishes to file objections to the report and recommendation. See, e.g., Burton v. United States, No. 8:23-cv-1372-CEH-SPF, 2024 WL 4356315, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 1, 2024) (construing pro se motion for reconsideration as objections to report and recommendation); Green v. Florida, No. 3:12-cv-134-J-32MCR, 2013 WL 5567324, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 9, 2013) (same); Williams v. Lynch, No. 6:06-cv-1540-Orl-28KRS, 2007 WL 2330919, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 13, 2007) (same). Accordingly, to the extent Plaintiff wishes to file objections, which would be considered by the Presiding District Judge, Plaintiff may do so within ten (10) days from the date of this Order.
DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on March 12, 2025.
Leslie Hoffman Price
LESLIE HOFFMAN PRICE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sizemore v. Judge Michael Orfinger, 2014 WL 12617441 (M.D. Fla. 2025)…inal order, but rather a recommendation, to which Plaintiff would appropriately address objections rather than a request for reconsideration. See Doc. No. 61, at 25 (citing 11 Cir. R. 3-1). See also Farrell v. GMAC Mortg., No. 2:13-cv-140-FtM-29DNF, 2014 WL 12617441, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 5, 2014) ("The Court finds that reconsideration is not the appropriate avenue to dispute the Report and Recommendation."). It instead appears that Plaintiff wishes to file objections to the report and recommendation. See, e.g…
Authorities Cited
- Sizemore v. Judge Michael Orfinger, 2014 WL 12617441 (M.D. Fla. 2025)