Holcomb v. Central Florida Regional Transit Authority

M.D. Florida

Holcomb v. Central Florida Regional Transit Authority

DecidedOctober 25, 2023

Docket6:23-cv-01571

StatusUnknown

This text of Holcomb v. Central Florida Regional Transit Authority (Holcomb v. Central Florida Regional Transit Authority) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Holcomb v. Central Florida Regional Transit Authority, (M.D. Fla. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION

GLYNDA HOLCOMB,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No: 6:23-cv-1571-CEM-LHP

CENTRAL FLORIDA REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY and CENTRAL FLORIDA COMMUTER RAIL COMMISSION,

Defendants

ORDER This cause came on for consideration without oral argument on the following motion filed herein: MOTION: MOTION FOR CASE UPDATE (Doc. No. 21) FILED: October 12, 2023

THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is DENIED. Before the Court is a “Motion for Case Update” filed by Plaintiff, who appears pro se. Doc. No. 21. In the motion, “Plaintiff asks the Court to give Plaintiff notice of any deficiencies and requirements via Pacer” and “motions the Court to reconsider the motion for default judgment against the Defendants in favor of the Plaintiff.” Id. Upon review, the motion will be denied. First, the motion fails to comply with Local Rule 3.01(a) and does not include a memorandum of legal authority in

support. Second, it is not entirely clear what relief Plaintiff seeks regarding “notice of any deficiencies and requirements via Pacer.” Third, to the extent that Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Court’s prior Orders denying her requests for default,

see Doc. Nos. 10, 12, the motion provides no basis for reconsideration. See Doc. No. 21. also Stallworth v. Omninet Village, L.P., No. 6:16-cv-546-Orl-31DAB, 2016 WL 10100424, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 23, 2016) (“Motions for reconsideration are permitted when there is (1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) newly discovered evidence; or (3) the need to correct clear error or manifest injustice.” (citing Tristar Lodging, Inc. v. Arch Speciality Ins. Co., 434 F. Supp. 2d 1286, 1301 (M.D. Fla. 2006), aff'd, 215 F. App’x 879 (11th Cir. 2007))). Insofar as Plaintiff is requesting an update regarding her request to proceed in forma pauperis, see Doc. Nos. 16-17, that request will be addressed in due course. DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on October 25, 2023.

LESLIE NOFFMAN PRICE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-2-

Copies furnished to:

Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION

GLYNDA HOLCOMB,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No: 6:23-cv-1571-CEM-LHP

CENTRAL FLORIDA REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY and CENTRAL FLORIDA COMMUTER RAIL COMMISSION,

Defendants

ORDER This cause came on for consideration without oral argument on the following motion filed herein: MOTION: MOTION FOR CASE UPDATE (Doc. No. 21) FILED: October 12, 2023

THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is DENIED. Before the Court is a “Motion for Case Update” filed by Plaintiff, who appears pro se. Doc. No. 21. In the motion, “Plaintiff asks the Court to give Plaintiff notice of any deficiencies and requirements via Pacer” and “motions the Court to reconsider the motion for default judgment against the Defendants in favor of the Plaintiff.” Id. Upon review, the motion will be denied. First, the motion fails to comply with Local Rule 3.01(a) and does not include a memorandum of legal authority in

support. Second, it is not entirely clear what relief Plaintiff seeks regarding “notice of any deficiencies and requirements via Pacer.” Third, to the extent that Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Court’s prior Orders denying her requests for default,

see Doc. Nos. 10, 12, the motion provides no basis for reconsideration. See Doc. No. 21. also Stallworth v. Omninet Village, L.P., No. 6:16-cv-546-Orl-31DAB, 2016 WL 10100424, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 23, 2016) (“Motions for reconsideration are permitted when there is (1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) newly discovered evidence; or (3) the need to correct clear error or manifest injustice.” (citing Tristar Lodging, Inc. v. Arch Speciality Ins. Co., 434 F. Supp. 2d 1286, 1301 (M.D. Fla. 2006), aff'd, 215 F. App’x 879 (11th Cir. 2007))). Insofar as Plaintiff is requesting an update regarding her request to proceed in forma pauperis, see Doc. Nos. 16-17, that request will be addressed in due course. DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on October 25, 2023.

LESLIE NOFFMAN PRICE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-2-

Copies furnished to:

Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Holcomb v. Central Florida Regional Transit Authority, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holcomb-v-central-florida-regional-transit-authority-flmd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack