O'Reilly v. Medical Facilities of America

District Court, W.D. Virginia·Decided October 1, 2024·No. 4:24-cv-00037·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION

MARGARET M. O’REILLY,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 2:24-cv-292-SPC-KCD

MEDICAL FACILITIES OF AMERICA and RIVERSIDE HEALTH AND REHABILITATION CENTER,

Defendants. / ORDER Pro se Plaintiff Margaret M. O’Reilly moves for access to the Court’s electronic filing system. (Doc. 19.) The motion is DENIED. “Pro se litigants are generally denied access to electronic filing unless extenuating circumstances exist to justify waiving CM/ECF procedures.” Huminski v. Vermont, No. 2:13-cv-692-FtM-29, 2014 WL 169848, *4 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 15, 2014); see also McMahon v. Cleveland Clinic Found. Police Dep't, 455 F. App'x 874, 878 (11th Cir. 2011) (affirming denial of CM/ECF access for pro se litigants). No extenuating circumstances have been shown (or even argued) here. To the extent Plaintiff believes electronic filing will help her access documents in the case, she can already submit documents electronically through the Web Portal on the Court’s website at https://www.flmd. uscourts.gov/electronic-document-submission-web-portal. ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida this October 1, 2024.

i tl oe — oat * Bale C. Dudek United States Magistrate Judge

Copies: All Parties of Record

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

O'Reilly v. Medical Facilities of America, (W.D. Va. 2024).

O'Reilly v. Medical Facilities of America (O'Reilly v. Medical Facilities of America) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

McMahon v. Cleveland Clinic Foundation Police Department
455 F. App'x 874 (Eleventh Circuit, 2011)