Anderson v. The City of Daytona Beach Municipal

United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida

Anderson v. The City of Daytona Beach Municipal

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION

SHIRLEY BAKER ANDERSON,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No: 6:22-cv-1417-CEM-LHP

THE CITY OF DAYTONA BEACH MUNICIPAL, RAYAN BELL, SUNTRUST MORTGAGE OF VIRGINIA, GARY M. GLASSMAN, ROBERT SCOTT KAHANE & ASSOCIATES, THOMAS CROWDER, CINDY WOLPER BORIZILLO, RORICK F. WILLIS, II , JOSEE RODRIGUIZ LUIS, III and MIDLAND FUNDING LLC,

Defendants

ORDER This cause came on for consideration without oral argument on the following motion filed herein: MOTION: JUDGE IS BIAS AND PREJUDICE PURSUANT RECUSAL DISQUALIFICATION RULE FLA. RULE 2.3330 . . . . (Doc. No. 47) FILED: January 23, 2023 THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is DENIED. Before the Court is a motion by Plaintiff, who appears pro se, which is titled

as a motion for recusal, but from the motion it is not actually clear what relief Plaintiff seeks. Doc. No.47. Inany event, on review of the motion and the docket, the motion will be DENIED because this case was dismissed without prejudice on December 27, 2022, and the case has been closed. See Doc. No. 37. See also Doc. Nos. 39, 42 (denying motions to reopen case). Even if the Court were to consider the motion - and Plaintiff has provided no legal authority authorizing the Court to consider said motion in a closed case - the motion fails to comply with the Local Rules, including Local Rules 1.08, 3.01(a), and 3.01(g). See also Moon v. Newsome,

863 F.2d 835, 837

(11th Cir. 1989) (stating that pro se litigants are “subject to the relevant law and rules of court, including the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure”). DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on January 25, 2023.

LESLIE NOFFMAN PRICE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties

_2-

Reference

Status
Unknown