ROUZARD
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
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.
In this pro se Social Security case, the plaintiff filed a motion for default/summary judgment against the Commissioner based on alleged failure to file a corporate disclosure statement and respond to discovery. The court denied the motion without prejudice for non-compliance with Local Rules.
The court denied the motion without prejudice because the plaintiff failed to comply with applicable Local Rules, specifically Local Rules 3.01(a) and 3.01(g).
“a pro se litigant "is subject to the relevant law and rules of court, including the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure."”
Establishes that pro se litigants cannot ignore procedural rules despite self-representation status
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff Rouzard, proceeding pro se, filed a motion for default judgment and/or summary judgment against the Commissioner of Social Security. The gro…
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 Local Rules Compliance cases and more on FLexlaw
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 in Orlando, Florida on June 24, 2024.
LESLIE 3 AN PRICE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Moon v. Lanson Newsome, 863 F.2d 835 (11th Cir. 1989)
- Flores-Dominguez v. United States, 493 U.S. 863 (U.S. 1989)