KEVIN RICHARD STAS v. NAPLES LAND YACHT HARBOR, INC., INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT OF NAPLES LAND YACHT HARBOR, INC., et al.

M.D. Florida

KEVIN RICHARD STAS v. NAPLES LAND YACHT HARBOR, INC., INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT OF NAPLES LAND YACHT HARBOR, INC., et al.

District Court, M.D. Florida·Decided December 31, 2025·No. 2:25-cv-00809·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION

KEVIN RICHARD STAS,

Plaintiff, Case No. 2:25-cv-809-KCD-DNF

v.

NAPLES LAND YACHT HARBOR, INC., INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT OF NAPLES LAND YACHT HARBOR, INC., et al.,

Defendants. /

ORDER Before the Court are two objections filed by Plaintiff Kevin Richard Stas to the Magistrate Judge’s orders under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a). (Docs. 59, 62.)1 First, Stas objects to Judge Frazier’s order denying his requests set forth in a unilateral case management report. (Doc. 52.) Second, Stas objects to Judge Frazier’s order denying reconsideration of the order denying him accommodations. (Doc. 55.) Non-dispositive orders from a magistrate judge, like at issue here, are reviewed for clear error. The district court must “modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).

1 Unless otherwise indicated, all internal quotation marks, citations, case history, and alterations have been omitted in this and later citations. “A finding is clearly erroneous if the reviewing court, after assessing the evidence in its entirety, is left with definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” A.R. by and through Root v. Dudek, 151 F. Supp. 3d 1309, 1312 (S.D. Fla. 2015). “A magistrate judge’s order is contrary to law when it fails to apply or misapplies relevant statutes, case law, or rules of procedure.” Id. Judge Frazier’s order denying Stas’ request to file a unilateral case management report is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Judge Frazier considered both parties’ input regarding the scheduling order and entered a schedule accordingly. (Docs. 44, 46, 57.) Likewise, Judge Frazier’s order denying reconsideration is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Judge Frazier applied the correct legal standard for reconsideration and considered Stas’ arguments, ultimately finding them unpersuasive. (Doc. 55.) The Court finds no reason to modify or set aside Judge Frazier’s orders under Rule 72(a), and thus Plaintiff's motions (Docs. 59, 62) are DENIED. ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on December 31, 2025.

KyleC.Dudek ~~

United States District Judge

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION

KEVIN RICHARD STAS,

Plaintiff, Case No. 2:25-cv-809-KCD-DNF

v.

NAPLES LAND YACHT HARBOR, INC., INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT OF NAPLES LAND YACHT HARBOR, INC., et al.,

Defendants. /

ORDER Before the Court are two objections filed by Plaintiff Kevin Richard Stas to the Magistrate Judge’s orders under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a). (Docs. 59, 62.)1 First, Stas objects to Judge Frazier’s order denying his requests set forth in a unilateral case management report. (Doc. 52.) Second, Stas objects to Judge Frazier’s order denying reconsideration of the order denying him accommodations. (Doc. 55.) Non-dispositive orders from a magistrate judge, like at issue here, are reviewed for clear error. The district court must “modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).

1 Unless otherwise indicated, all internal quotation marks, citations, case history, and alterations have been omitted in this and later citations. “A finding is clearly erroneous if the reviewing court, after assessing the evidence in its entirety, is left with definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” A.R. by and through Root v. Dudek, 151 F. Supp. 3d 1309, 1312 (S.D. Fla. 2015). “A magistrate judge’s order is contrary to law when it fails to apply or misapplies relevant statutes, case law, or rules of procedure.” Id. Judge Frazier’s order denying Stas’ request to file a unilateral case management report is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Judge Frazier considered both parties’ input regarding the scheduling order and entered a schedule accordingly. (Docs. 44, 46, 57.) Likewise, Judge Frazier’s order denying reconsideration is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Judge Frazier applied the correct legal standard for reconsideration and considered Stas’ arguments, ultimately finding them unpersuasive. (Doc. 55.) The Court finds no reason to modify or set aside Judge Frazier’s orders under Rule 72(a), and thus Plaintiff's motions (Docs. 59, 62) are DENIED. ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on December 31, 2025.

KyleC.Dudek ~~

United States District Judge

KEVIN RICHARD STAS v. NAPLES LAND YACHT HARBOR, INC., INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT OF NAPLES LAND YACHT HARBOR, INC., et al., (M.D. Fla. 2025).

Pincite

KEVIN RICHARD STAS v. NAPLES LAND YACHT HARBOR, INC., INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT OF NAPLES LAND YACHT HARBOR, INC., et al. (KEVIN RICHARD STAS v. NAPLES LAND YACHT HARBOR, INC., INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT OF NAPLES LAND YACHT HARBOR, INC., et al.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related