Harpo v. Intermark Management Corporation

S.D. Georgia

Harpo v. Intermark Management Corporation

DecidedMarch 29, 2023

Docket1:21-cv-00087

StatusUnknown

This text of Harpo v. Intermark Management Corporation (Harpo v. Intermark Management Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Harpo v. Intermark Management Corporation, (S.D. Ga. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA AUGUSTA DIVISION

WIHLY HARPO, Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO.: 1:21-cv-87 v. INTERMARK MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, et al., Defendants.

ORDER This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Orders of January 10, 2023 and January 19, 2023. Doc. 173. The Magistrate Judge recently issued three Orders denying various motions filed by Plaintiff. Docs. 158, 159, 164. The Court issued two of these Orders on January 10, 2023, and one on January 19, 2023. In these Orders, the Magistrate Judge denied 12 different motions filed by Plaintiff. Most of Plaintiff's motions were denied as meritless, repetitive, or moot, while the remainder were denied on the merits. Plaintiff signed his Objections on February 10, 2023. The Court considers Plaintiff's Objections filed on the date he signed them. See Jeffries v. United States, 748 F.3d 1310, 1314 (11th Cir. 2014). When a magistrate judge rules on a non-dispositive pretrial matter, parties may object to that ruling and seek review from the district judge under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure □□□□□□ Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). “A party may serve and file objections to the order within 14 days after being served with a copy. A party may not assign as error a defect in the order not timely objected to.” Id. Plaintiff's Objections are untimely, filed 31 days after the Magistrate Judge’s first two Orders and 22 days after the third Order. “Plaintiff waived the right to appeal the Court’s order

by failing to file timely objections.” Sprayberry v. Schnake, No. 7:13-CV-136, 2014 WL 7433116, at *2 (M.D. Ga. Dec. 31, 2014) (citing Redmon v. Lake Cnty. Sheriff's Office, 414 F. App’x 221, 226-27 (11th Cir. 2011)). Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff's Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s January 10,2023 and January 19, 2023 Orders. The Magistrate Judge’s Orders remain the Orders of this Court. SO ORDERED, this Pay of March, 2023.

kK) Ay LAG Ap DAL HALL.CHIEF JUDGE STATES DISTRICT COURT OUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA AUGUSTA DIVISION

WIHLY HARPO, Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO.: 1:21-cv-87 v. INTERMARK MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, et al., Defendants.

ORDER This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Orders of January 10, 2023 and January 19, 2023. Doc. 173. The Magistrate Judge recently issued three Orders denying various motions filed by Plaintiff. Docs. 158, 159, 164. The Court issued two of these Orders on January 10, 2023, and one on January 19, 2023. In these Orders, the Magistrate Judge denied 12 different motions filed by Plaintiff. Most of Plaintiff's motions were denied as meritless, repetitive, or moot, while the remainder were denied on the merits. Plaintiff signed his Objections on February 10, 2023. The Court considers Plaintiff's Objections filed on the date he signed them. See Jeffries v. United States, 748 F.3d 1310, 1314 (11th Cir. 2014). When a magistrate judge rules on a non-dispositive pretrial matter, parties may object to that ruling and seek review from the district judge under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure □□□□□□ Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). “A party may serve and file objections to the order within 14 days after being served with a copy. A party may not assign as error a defect in the order not timely objected to.” Id. Plaintiff's Objections are untimely, filed 31 days after the Magistrate Judge’s first two Orders and 22 days after the third Order. “Plaintiff waived the right to appeal the Court’s order

by failing to file timely objections.” Sprayberry v. Schnake, No. 7:13-CV-136, 2014 WL 7433116, at *2 (M.D. Ga. Dec. 31, 2014) (citing Redmon v. Lake Cnty. Sheriff's Office, 414 F. App’x 221, 226-27 (11th Cir. 2011)). Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff's Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s January 10,2023 and January 19, 2023 Orders. The Magistrate Judge’s Orders remain the Orders of this Court. SO ORDERED, this Pay of March, 2023.

kK) Ay LAG Ap DAL HALL.CHIEF JUDGE STATES DISTRICT COURT OUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Harpo v. Intermark Management Corporation, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harpo-v-intermark-management-corporation-gasd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack