IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

JEAN E. JOSEPH, 

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 4:11-cv-00034-MP-CAS

OFFICER R. GORMAN, 

Defendants.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This cause comes on for consideration upon the Magistrate Judge's Second Report and

Recommendation dated April, 2013, recommending that Defendant’s Motion for Summary

Judgment (Doc. 86) be granted. (Doc. 100). The parties have been furnished a copy of the

Report and Recommendation and have been afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant

to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). Plaintiff has done so. (Doc. 106). Having

considered the Report and Recommendation, and Plaintiff’s timely objections thereto, I have

determined that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted. 

After the filing of defendant's motion for summary judgment, the Court repeatedly

advised Plaintiff of his obligation to respond to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and

explained over nearly three pages Plaintiff’s burden as the non-moving party. (Doc. 88). This

explanation notified Plaintiff, inter alia, that he may “not rely upon the ‘mere allegation or

denials’ in the pleadings,” but must present acceptable evidentiary material, including “sworn

affidavits, sworn documents, or other evidence indicating the existence of a genuine issue of

material fact.” (Doc. 88). Plaintiff, in the order at Doc. 99, was even given additional time to

file a response in opposition due to his failure to keep his mailing address updated. (See Docs.
94, 96 and 97). Plaintiff failed to respond with the time constraints set out by the Magistrate

Judge, and when he did respond 21 days past the deadline, he filed a "Request for Trial", Doc.

102, which did not provide the evidentiary support necessary to oppose summary judgment, as

described by the Magistrate Judge.

Thus, as the Magistrate Judge correctly notes, Defendant’s Motion for Summary

Judgment (Doc. 86) is essentially unopposed, since Plaintiff failed to file a response in

opposition thereto before the March 1, 2013, deadline established by the Court. To date,

Plaintiff has failed to file a proper response in opposition and has not established or plead

excusable neglect as to such failure. Even if Plaintiff’s Request for Trial (Doc. 102) and

Response to the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 106) could be considered a response in

opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, several factors militate against

consideration thereof. First, these documents would be untimely since they were filed well after

the March 1, 2013, deadline established by the Court for Plaintiff to file his response in

opposition. Second, the documents fail to include acceptable evidentiary material to indicate the

existence of a genuine issue of material fact. This Court has painstakingly reviewed Plaintiff’s

handwritten argument, comments and margin notes in both the Request for Trial (Doc. 102) and

the Response to the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 106), but such efforts could not – and do

not – serve as an adequate response to a properly supported motion for summary judgment. This

was made clear to Plaintiff in the Court’s order dated January 10, 2013. (Doc. 88). 

As the Magistrate Judge warned in the order at Doc. 99, in light of the numerous chances

afforded to Plaintiff as a pro se litigant thus far in this case, this Court declines to extend further

leniency. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 86) is procedurally unopposed, and

even granting liberal consideration of Plaintiff’s attempted responses thereto, this Court must
grant Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. 

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 100) is adopted and

incorporated by reference in this order.

2. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 86) is GRANTED.

3. Plaintiff’s Request for Trial (Doc. 102) is DENIED as moot.

DONE AND ORDERED this 27th day of September, 2013

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge