Opinion
CASE NO. 5:17-CV-240 (MTT)
07-05-2018
DANIEL BARFIELD, Plaintiff, v. Dr. SHARON LEWIS, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
Plaintiff Daniel Barfield moves for reconsideration of United State Magistrate Judge Charles H. Weigle's order (Doc. 47) denying his motion to stay the proceedings (Doc. 46). Doc. 48. Specifically, the Magistrate Judge denied Barfield's "request for an indefinite stay" but granted him a 21-day extension in which to respond to the Defendants' motion to dismiss (Doc. 41). Doc. 47. Barfield argues that "he is not asking the Courts for a[n] indefinite stay of proceedings, but rather a stay of proceedings until the Plaintiff (A) can find another jail-house lawyer to assist him in filing meaningful legal document(s) in this case, and/or (B) for the Plaintiff to find a legally trained person(s)/attorney to assist him in this above-styled action." Doc. 48 at 3.
The Court "may reconsider any pretrial matter [decided by the Magistrate Judge] . . . where it has been shown that the [M]agistrate [J]udge's order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); see also Brown v. United States, 748 F.3d 1045, 1055 (11th Cir. 2014); Muhammad v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., 399 F. App'x 460, 462 (11th Cir. 2010). The Court must liberally construe the filings of Barfield, who is proceeding pro se. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) ("A document filed pro se is to be liberally construed." (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); see also Mays v. United States, 817 F.3d 728, 731 n.2 (11th Cir. 2016) ("Given Mays's motion to vacate and supplemental notice were filed pro se, we construe them liberally." (citation omitted)). But here, even liberally construing his motion, Barfield has not made either of the showings required to merit reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge's order (Doc. 46), and, thus, his Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 48) is DENIED. The Court further ORDERS Barfield, who is proceeding pro se, to respond to the Defendants' motion to dismiss (Doc. 41) within twenty-one (21) days of the date of this order, on or before Thursday, July 26, 2018. As the Magistrate Judge explained to Barfield in an earlier order, his failure to respond to and rebut the legal arguments in the Defendants' brief may result in the statements being accepted as uncontested and correct. Doc. 43 at 3. And, because this is the second time Barfield is being afforded extra time to respond, he is warned that he will not be granted another extension absent good cause.
SO ORDERED, this 5th day of July, 2018.
S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT