Mitchell v. North Carolina Medical Board et al

Filing 13

ORDER denying without prejudice 5 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Judge Roy B. Dalton, Jr. on 10/20/2016. (VMF)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION PAUL A. MITCHELL, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 6:16-cv-1648-Orl-37DCI NORTH CAROLINA MEDICAL BOARD; PATRICK BAESTRIERI; SARAH EARLY; KAREN MCGOVERN; CHERYL HARA; ASHLEY M. KLEIN; SADZI OLIVA; and DANIEL KELBER, Defendants. ORDER This cause is before the Court on its own motion. On September 20, 2016, Plaintiff initiated the instant action pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (Doc. 1 (“Complaint”).) Contemporaneously with the Complaint, Plaintiff filed motions to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2 (“IFP Motion”)) and to temporarily seal the Complaint, IFP Motion, and a forthcoming motion for preliminary injunction (“PI Motion”) (Doc. 3 (“Motion to Seal”)). On October 14, 2016, the Court denied the Motion to Seal on its merits. (Doc. 9 (“October 14 Order”).) Because the Motion to Seal stressed Plaintiff’s insistence on proceeding in a sealed action, the Court denied the IFP Motion without prejudice and granted Plaintiff leave to refile such motion in the event that he desired to continue in an open proceeding. (See Docs. 3, 4, 9.) Plaintiff has not yet filed an IFP Motion, nor has he paid the required filing fee. As such, the PI Motion filed September 23, 2016, is premature and is due to be denied without prejudice. Plaintiff may reassert such motion after he pays the requisite filing fee or is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 5) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Orlando, Florida, on October 20, 2016. Copies: Counsel of Record 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?