Rouzard v. Commissioner of Social Security

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION

DIANSKY ROUZARD,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No: 6:24-cv-585-CEM-LHP

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant

ORDER This cause came on for consideration without oral argument on the following motion filed herein: MOTION: MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AND SUMMARY DEFAULT JUDGMENT (Doc. No. 32) FILED: July 11, 2024

THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is DENIED. The above-styled motion is a duplicate copy of a previously-filed motion that has already been ruled upon by the Court. Compare Doc. No. 32, with Doc. No. 28; see also Doc. No. 29. Accordingly, the above-styled motion (Doc. No. 32) is DENIED for the same reasons previously set forth. See Doc. No. 29. Plaintiff is cautioned that status as a pro se litigant does not excuse a party from compliance with all applicable Court Orders, Local Rules, and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989) (a pro se litigant “is subject to the relevant law and rules of court, including the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 863 (1989). Plaintiff is further cautioned that future filings that fail to comply with all Court Orders, Local Rules, and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will be stricken or summarily denied without further notice, and may subject Plaintiff to sanctions. DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on July 15, 2024.

LESLIE 3 AN PRICE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties

-2-