Opinion
8:21-cv-106-MSS-AAS
06-01-2022
BIANCA VELEZ, Plaintiff, v. DARDEN RESTAURANTS and CHEDDARS SCRATCH KITCHEN, Defendant.
ORDER
AMANDA ARNOLD SANSONE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Bianca Velez moves pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e) for a more definite statement on the undersigned's May 12, 2022 report and recommendation (Doc. 16). (Doc. 17). “Rule 12(e), however, provides for filing a motion for more definite statement as to a pleading to which a party may file a responsive pleading.” Gibson v. Resort at Paradise Lakes, LLC, No. 8:16-cv-791-CEH-AAS, 2016 WL 7049265, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 5, 2016) (emphasis added) (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(e)). Rule 12(e) contemplates requests for more information from parties to the case, not the court itself. To the extent Ms. Velez contends the undersigned's recommendation is “so vague and ambiguous that an objection is not possible due to the lack of information basing the grounds for dismissal, ” her arguments are nonetheless better suited for a proper objection to the undersigned's May 12, 2022 report and recommendation. Accordingly, Ms. Velez's motion for a more definite statement (Doc. 17) is DENIED.
Ms. Velez claims dismissal of her case “feels unjust because only one avenue of remedy has been provided over and over.” (Doc. 17, p. 2). However, as noted by the undersigned, regardless of the court's decision on dismissing Ms. Velez's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 13), “Ms. Velez may pay the filing fee and conduct proper service of process if she wishes to proceed under her amended complaint.” (Doc. 16, p. 6 n. 2).