Opinion
6:24-cv-585-CEM-LHP
06-24-2024
DIANSKY ROUZARD, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant
ORDER
LESLIE HOFFMAN PRICE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This cause came on for consideration without oral argument on the following motion filed herein:
MOTION: MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT FOR DECLARATORY AND MONETARY RELIEF AGAINST DEFENDANT (Doc. No. 13)
FILED: June 7, 2024
THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is DENIED without prejudice.
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, has filed a motion for default judgment/ summary judgment against Defendant, the grounds for which appear to be Defendant's failure to file a corporate disclosure statement and/ or respond to discovery. Doc. No. 13. Upon review, the motion will be denied without prejudice for failure to comply with the Local Rules, including Local Rules 3.01(a) and 3.01(g). Any renewed filing must fully comply with all applicable Local Rules. 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).
DONE and ORDERED.