Pendergraft IV v. State of Florida et al

Filing 9

ORDER denying 8 Motion for reconsideration. Signed by Judge Gregory A. Presnell on 7/25/2011. (ED)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA O RLANDO D IVISION JAMES S. PENDERGRAFT, IV, Plaintiff, -vs- Case No. 6:11-cv-1116-Orl-31KRS STATE OF FLORIDA; AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION; PAM BONDI, in her capacity as Attorney General for the State of Florida; LAURA MACLAFFERTY, individually and in her capacity as Unit Manager, Bureau of Health Facility Regulation for the Administrative Health Care Agency; and RICHARD SALIBA, individually and in his capacity as Assistant General Counsel of the Administrative Health Care Agency, Defendants. _______________________________________ ORDER This matter comes before the Court on the Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 8) filed by the Plaintiff, James Pendergraft IV (“Pendergraft”). Pendergraft seeks reconsideration of this Court’s order (Doc. 4), entered July 7, 2011, denying his motion for a temporary restraining order. Previously, Pendergraft contended that a TRO was required because his license was set to expire July 5, 2011. (Doc. 2 at 3). In the motion filed July 22, 2011, he contends that, based on another document in his files, the true expiration date is July 23, 2011, requiring an immediate TRO. He offers no explanation for his failure to uncover this document earlier, or his failure to serve the defendants despite the Court’s order, two weeks ago, to do so. Even if these issues had been addressed, the same lack of diligence that doomed the original effort to procure a TRO would compel the Court to deny this motion for reconsideration. In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED that the Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 8) is DENIED. DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, Orlando, Florida on July 25, 2011. Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Party -2-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?