Osterback v. Kemp

Full title: MARK OSTERBACK, Plaintiff, vs. DOYLE KEMP, et al., Defendants

Court: United States District Court, N.D. Florida

Date published: Dec 11, 2003

Case No. 4:01 cv207-RH/WCS (N.D. Fla. Dec. 11, 2003)

Opinion

Case No. 4:01 cv207-RH/WCS

December 11, 2003

ORDER

WILLIAM SHERRILL, Magistrate Judge

Plaintiff, a pro se inmate, has filed a motion to consolidate two pending cases or, in the alternative, to stay issuance of a court order concerning the previously issued report and recommendation. Doc. 123. While Plaintiff's claims are similar in that he contends in both cases that he has been subjected to retaliatory transfers, each transfer must be reviewed separately as the facts are unique to each prison setting. Therefore, Plaintiff's motion is denied. Plaintiff's cases can be better managed if they are kept separate. As for the motion to stay this case until the other case is decided, that request is also denied.

Plaintiff has also filed a motion to correct clerical errors, doc. 122, in the report and recommendation under Rule 60. The first part of Plaintiff's motion concerns an alleged error in the Court's statement of the evidence that Plaintiff forgo filing complaints due to his fear of additional retaliatory transfers. The report and recommendation broadly concluded that Plaintiff did not file complaints against officials at either Walton or Santa Rosa Correctional Institutions. Plaintiff indicates that statement should be more narrow and should more properly state that Plaintiff's fear caused him to forgo bringing suit against Hamilton Correctional Institution officials. Plaintiff's motion is granted. This correction does not change the substance of the report and recommendation.

Finally, Plaintiff filed objections to the report and recommendation which, simultaneously contains a renewed motion for reconsideration. Doc. 121. That document shall be immediately referred to the district judge pursuant to the October 31, 2003, order. Doc. 119.

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff's motion to consolidate this case with another of his pending cases, doc. 123, is DENIED.

2. Plaintiff's motion to stay this case, doc. 123, is DENIED.

3. Plaintiff's motion to correct a clerical error in the prior report and recommendation, doc. 122, is GRANTED as explained within this order.

4. The Clerk of Court shall immediately refer this file to District Judge Robert Hinkle for consideration of Plaintiff's objections to the report and recommendation and renewed motion for reconsideration, doc. 121. See doc. 119.

DONE AND ORDERED.