Bell v. Florida Highway Patrol et al

Filing 95

ORDER denying 89 Motion and request for interlocutory appeal. Signed by Judge Gregory A. Presnell on 8/31/2009. (ED)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
O RLANDO DIVISION RENEE BELL, Plaintiff, -vsFLORIDA HIGHWAY PATROL & LARRY COSTANZO, Defendants. ______________________________________ Case No. 6:05-cv-1806-Orl-31DAB

ORDER
This case comes before the Court on the Plaintiff's motion and request for interlocutory appeal. (Doc. 89). So far as the Court is able to interpret the motion, the Plaintiff is complaining about the dismissal of the Second Amended Complaint, the failure of the parties to move forward with the discovery process, and Defendant FHP's failure to pay the costs she was awarded on appeal.1 Plaintiff has not established an entitlement to the relief she seeks. She has not shown a basis for the Court to reconsider that dismissal, the discovery issue is already the subject of

In addition, for reasons that are not clear, the Plaintiff spends several pages addressing issues of subject matter jurisdiction and immunity.

1

motions filed by the Plaintiff (Doc. 88) and FHP (Doc. 93), and counsel for FHP has promised to expeditiously process the payment. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion and request for interlocutory appeal (Doc. 89) is DENIED. DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, Orlando, Florida on August 31, 2009.

Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Party

-2-