Hill v. Aramark, LLC

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

TONY L. HILL, Plaintiff, V. Case No. 8:23-cv-26-WFJ-MRM ARAMARK, LLC, et al, Defendants. / ORDER Before the Court is Mr. Hill’s “Motion for Local R. 56.1 with Additional Rule 58 Documents and Exhibits for Material Facts R. #26” (Doc. 39) in which he appears to move for summary judgment. Mr. Hill’s construed motion for summary judgment is premature and therefore DENIED without prejudice. See Blumel v. Mylander, 919 F.Supp. 423, 428 (M.D.Fla.1996) (Rule 56 “implies [that] district courts should not grant summary judgment until the non-movant has had an adequate opportunity for discovery.”); Snook v. Trust Co. of Ga. Bank, 859 F.2d 865, 870 (11th Cir.1988) (“[S]ummary judgment may only be decided upon an adequate record.”). ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on July 11, 2023.

WILLIAM F. iS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Copies to: Counsel of Record Tony L. Hill, pro se