BLAKE v. GANDY et al

Filing 30

ORDER. The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation is not adopted because it appears that the two cases against the Orange County Sheriff's Office, Case Nos. 6:19cv494 and 6:19cv72, are actually the same case. The refore, the plaintiff did disclose all of his initiated actions in state and federal courts, and there was no omission to be penalized. This action is remanded to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. Signed by SENIOR JUDGE ROGER VINSON on 4/27/2021. (alb)

Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PANAMA CITY DIVISION
KEVIN L. BLAKE,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 5:20-cv-137-RV/MJF

G. GANDY, et. al.,
Defendants.
/
ORDER
This cause comes on for consideration upon the Magistrate Judge’s Report
and Recommendation dated April 15, 2021 (ECF No. 28). The parties have been
furnished a copy of the Report and Recommendation and have been afforded an
opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section
636(b)(1). I have made a de novo determination of the timely filed objections.
Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and the timely filed
objections thereto (ECF No. 29), I have determined that the Report and
Recommendation should not be adopted.
Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:
1.

The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is not adopted

because it appears that the two cases against the Orange County Sheriff’s Office,
Case Nos. 6:19cv494 and 6:19cv72, are actually the same case. Therefore, the

Page 2 of 2

plaintiff did disclose all of his initiated actions in state and federal courts, and there
was no omission to be penalized.
2.

This action is remanded to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.

DONE AND ORDERED this 27th day of April, 2021.
s/ Roger Vinson
ROGER VINSON
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5:20-cv-137-RV/MJF