KEVIN RICHARD STAS
v.
NAPLES LAND YACHT HARBOR, INC., INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT OF NAPLES LAND YACHT HARBOR, INC., ET AL.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Plaintiff Kevin Richard Stas objected to two magistrate judge orders denying his requests for a unilateral case management report and reconsideration of a denial of accommodations. The district court reviewed both orders for clear error under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) and found neither order was clearly erroneous or contrary to law, affirming both.
The district court held that neither of the magistrate judge's orders was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The magistrate judge properly considered both parties' input in setting the scheduling order, and correctly applied the legal standard for reconsideration in finding Stas's arguments unpersuasive.
[1] A district court reviews a magistrate judge's non-dispositive order for clear error or if it is contrary to law.
[2] A finding is clearly erroneous if the reviewing court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed after assessing the evidence in its…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“A finding is clearly erroneous if the reviewing court, after assessing the evidence in its entirety, is left with definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.”
Establishes the standard for review of magistrate judge orders under Rule 72(a)
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceStas filed objections to Magistrate Judge Frazier's orders. The magistrate judge had denied Stas's requests in a unilateral case management report and…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Motion For Reconsideration Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
Before the Court are two objections filed by Plaintiff Kevin Richard Stas to the Magistrate Judge's orders under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a). (Docs. 59, 62.)¹ First, Stas objects to Judge Frazier's order denying his requests set forth in a unilateral case management report. (Doc. 52.) Second, Stas objects to Judge Frazier's order denying reconsideration of the order denying him accommodations. (Doc. 55.)
Non-dispositive orders from a magistrate judge, like at issue here, are reviewed for clear error. The district court must “modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).
“A finding is clearly erroneous if the reviewing court, after assessing the evidence in its entirety, is left with definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” A.R. by and through Root v. Dudek, 151 F. Supp. 3d 1309, 1312 (S.D. Fla. 2015). “A magistrate judge's order is contrary to law when it fails to apply or misapplies relevant statutes, case law, or rules of procedure." Id.
Judge Frazier's order denying Stas' request to file a unilateral case management report is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Judge Frazier considered both parties' input regarding the scheduling order and entered a schedule accordingly. (Docs. 44, 46, 57.) Likewise, Judge Frazier's order denying reconsideration is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Judge Frazier applied the correct legal standard for reconsideration and considered Stas' arguments, ultimately finding them unpersuasive. (Doc. 55.)
The Court finds no reason to modify or set aside Judge Frazier's orders under Rule 72(a), and thus Plaintiffs motions (Docs. 59, 62) are DENIED. ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on December 31, 2025.
Kyle C. Dudek United States District Judge
2
[fn 1]: Unless otherwise indicated, all internal quotation marks, citations, case history, and alterations have been omitted in this and later citations.