Karwel v. City of Palm Bay et al

Filing 9

ORDER denying without prejudice 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; adopting 5 Report and Recommendations.. Signed by Judge Roy B. Dalton, Jr. on 5/6/2015. (VMF)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION SANDRA KANE KARWEL, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 6:15-cv-597-Orl-37KRS CITY OF PALM BAY; JOSEPH POTEAT; SHERRY POTEAT; BOB WILLIAMS; LEE FELDMAN; SUSAN HANN; ANDREW LANNON; WILLIAM CAPOTE; PALM BAY POLICE DEPARTMENT; DOUGLAS MULDOON; NEIL VALENTI; YVONNE MARTINEZ; RICKY WORONKA; CHRISTOPHER RICHARDS; STEVE SHYTLE; SHANE M. CARROLL; MICHAEL BANDISH; CAROL VAZQUEZ; ROBERT VICKERS; ROBERT RAMA; STEVE HILL; SEAN MERTENS; EDWIN LUTZ; TROY RAMIREZ; MARK FOSKEY; HEDI HUNTER; PALM BAY CODE ENFORCEMENT; ANGELICA MARTINEZ; JOHN DEVIVO; VAL CARTER; PALM BAY UTILITIES DEPARTMENT; SUZANNE SHERMAN; RE SUPPORT SERVICES; TRASSA GEACH; BREVARD TAX COLLECTOR; LISA CULLEN; BREVARD PROPERTY APPRAISER; DANA BLICKLEY; BREVARD CLERK OF COURT; SCOTT ELLIS; STATE ATTORNEY OF BREVARD COUNTY; PHIL ARCHER; TYLER CHASEZ; MELISSA PEAT; MICHAEL J. CANNON; WILL SCHEINER; JULIA A. LYNCH; SEAN M. SENRA; JASON A. HICKS; PAUL WIGHT; PALM BAY HOSPITAL INC.; DAVID MATHIAS; SPACE COAST CREDIT UNION; DOUGLAS R. SAMUELS; BANK OF AMERICA, GENERAL COUNSEL; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATES OF MELBOURNE; WENDE J. ANDERSON; ELISABETH BEASLEY; ADVANCED TOWING; LAW OFFICE OF FRESE, HANSEN, ANDERSON, ANDERSON, HEUSTON AND WHITEHEAD; GREG HANSEN; GARY FRESE; WESH 2, GENERAL COUNSEL; WFTV 9, GENERAL COUNSEL; NEW 13, GENERAL COUNSEL; FLORIDA TODAY NEWSPAPER, GENERAL COUNSEL; BESS, BLOUGOURAS, JONES, AND FREYBERG, P.A.; CAROL BESS; ROSE MARIE JUDISINGH; JANE DOE; JOHN DOE; and CINDY, Defendants. ORDER Today, the Court is called upon to evaluate the legal sufficiency of the Plaintiff’s pro se Complaint (Doc. 1) in the context of a “Reply to Report and Recommendation” (Doc. 8), which the Court construes as a Rule 72(a) objection to Magistrate Judge Spaulding’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) that the pleading be stricken (Doc. 5). Unfortunately for Plaintiff, typing her objections in all caps or in bold font (see Doc. 8) does little to address the pleading deficiencies so glaringly apparent in her Complaint (see Doc. 1). Shouting does not alter the legal landscape. At bottom, rather than reviewing the R&R’s cited legal authorities and accepting its well-intentioned explanation of her pleading’s inadequacies, or rather than providing any legal authority in opposition to the R&R, Plaintiff simply expresses her contrary view. (See Doc. 8.) Plaintiff’s Complaint is deficient for the reasons addressed in the R&R. (See Doc. 5.) Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: 1. Magistrate Judge Spaulding’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 5) is ADOPTED and CONFIRMED and made a part of this Order. 2. Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Doc. 2) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 3. The Clerk is DIRECTED to STRIKE Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1) from the docket. 4. On or before Friday, May 22, 2015, Plaintiff may file: (1) an amended complaint that resolves the deficiencies addressed in the R&R; and (2) an amended application to proceed without prepayment of costs or fees. Failure to timely file either of those documents may result in dismissal of 2 this action without further notice. The Court encourages Plaintiff to visit the Middle District of Florida’s website for helpful advice on proceeding without a lawyer, 1 bearing in mind that pro se litigants remain “subject to the relevant law and rules of court, including the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989). DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Orlando, Florida, on May 6, 2015. Copies: Counsel of Record Pro Se Party 1 The Court’s online pro se portal is available at: https://www.flmd.uscourts.gov/pro_se/default.htm 3

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?