Case Information
*1 Case 5:16-cv-00106-CEM-PRL Document 20 Filed 09/28/16 Page 1 of 2 PageID 241
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA OCALA DIVISION
DANIEL ROSARIO-GONZALEZ,
Plaintiff, v. Case No: 5:16-cv-106-Oc-CEMPRL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant. O RDER
On April 25, 2016, I entered a report recommending that the Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis be denied because his complaint did not comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, his case was already being litigated in Puerto Rico, and because venue lies in Puerto Rico, not here—i.e., it is apparent from the pending complaint that the Plaintiff resides in Puerto Rico and received the care he complains about there. (Doc. 12). Plaintiff has objected to the report and recommendations (Doc. 13) and, without leave, subsequently filed various medical records and other items on the docket. [1] (Docs. 14–18). The objections remain pending.
In the meantime, the Plaintiff has filed the latest motion and asks the Court to decide this case on or by December 13, 2016. [2] (Doc. 19, p. 17). The Court, of course, endeavors to adjudicate all matters in a timely manner, as justice ordinarily requires and as the pending caseload allows. Plaintiff should note that district courts have broad discretion in managing their cases. *2 Case 5:16-cv-00106-CEM-PRL Document 20 Filed 09/28/16 Page 2 of 2 PageID 242 Chrysler Int’l Corp v. Chemaly , 280 F.3d 1358, 1360 (11th Cir. 2002) (“Given the caseload of most district courts and the fact that cases can sometimes stretch out over years, district courts must have discretion and authority to ensure that their cases move to a reasonably timely and orderly conclusion.”). Thus, the Plaintiff’s request that this case be decided by a certain date or otherwise expedited is DENIED .
DONE and ORDERED in Ocala, Florida on September 28, 2016.
Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
Unrepresented Parties - 2 -
[1] Plaintiff notes in his objection that the case pending in Puerto Rico has now been dismissed without prejudice. (Doc. 13, ¶ 6).
[2] The motion is titled “Informative Motion” and it sets forth what appears to be the facts of this case, Plaintiff’s legal argument, and what appears to be numerous medical records. (Doc. 19).