HALMOS

v.

SPINARD

Cir. 1989); 11th Cir. R. 3-1.)) On the day objections were due, Plaintiff moved for an extension of time to file objections to the R&R through March 15, 2025, (ECF No. 73), which this Court promptly granted, (ECF No. 74). Accordingly, Plaintiff's objections were due on or before March 15, 2025. (ECF No. 74.) Plaintiff failed to meet this extended deadline or request a further extension of time to do so, and instead filed untimely objections on March 17, 2025. (ECF No. 75.)

Although pro se pleadings are held to a less strict standard than pleadings filed by lawyers and thus are construed liberally, the liberal construction given to pro se pleadings “does not mean liberal deadlines." See Robinson v. Schafer, 305 Fed. Appx. 629, 630 (11th Cir. 2008) (emphasis added). This is especially true considering Plaintiff clearly knew the process for seeking extensions of time, as he requested this Court to extend the deadline through March 15 and has requested and received extensions of other deadlines throughout the pendency of this case. (ECF Nos. 39, 40, 45, 46, 58, 62.) Further, it was incumbent upon Plaintiff to request an extension of time of an appropriate duration that accurately reflected his needs when he first requested an extension of time to file his objections, (ECF No. 73.)

Because Plaintiff failed to timely file objections or request an additional extension of time to do so, he is barred from a de novo determination by this Court of the issues covered in the R&R and from attacking on appeal any factual or legal conclusions contained in the R&R, except upon plain error if necessary in the interest of justice. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); Henley v. Johnson, 885 F. 2d 790, 794 (11th Cir. 1989); 11th Cir. R. 3-1. Regardless, this Court has reviewed Judge Strauss's R&R, (ECF No. 71), the record, and relevant legal authorities and concludes that the factual findings and legal conclusions within the R&R are well supported by the record and relevant authorities.

Case 4:22-cv-10006-JEM Document 76 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/19/25 11:54:01 Page 3 of 3

While Plaintiff's objections¹ were not timely submitted as to Judge Strauss's R&R, the Court construes section II, pages 3-6, as a Motion to Reconsider this Court's paperless order² denying in part Plaintiffs motion for extension of time to file objections to Magistrate Judge Strauss's Order³ Denying Motion for Hearing, (ECF No. 55), Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Second Motion to Dismiss, (ECF No. 58), and Motion to Compel Discovery, (ECF No. 59). To the extent Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of that denial, Plaintiffs request is granted. Plaintiff may object to Judge Strauss's Order, (ECF No. 72), on or before March 28, 2025.

Accordingly, after careful consideration, it is hereby ADJUDGED that:

1. United States Magistrate Judge Strauss's Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 71), is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED.

2. Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration, (ECF No. 50), is DENIED.

3. Plaintiffs' Motion to Adopt, (ECF No. 51), is GRANTED to the extent it seeks to adopt the arguments made in the Motion for Reconsideration but DENIED insofar as it seeks reconsideration.

4. Defendant's Second Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, (ECF No. 57), is GRANTED.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 18 day of March, 2025.

JOSE E. MARTINEZ

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies provided to: Magistrate Judge Strauss All Counsel of Record

3