The Court's ruling was based on error/mistake/oversight/etc.
You write & submit a formal objection
I. Legal Citations
28 USC §636(b)(1)(C) | Pro Se Civil-Rights Cases and Collateral Attacks on Criminal Convictions
"Within fourteen days after being served with a copy, any party may serve and file written
objections to such proposed findings and recommendations as provided by rules of
court. A judge of the court shall make a
de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings
or recommendations to which objection is made. A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The judge may also receive further
evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions."
Rule 46 Fed. R. Civ. P. | Objecting to a Ruling or Order
"When the ruling or order is requested or made, a party need only state the action that it wants the court to take or objects to, along with the grounds for the request or objection."
Rule 60 Fed. R. Civ. P. | Relief from a Judgment or Order
“(a) CORRECTIONS BASED ON CLERICAL MISTAKES; OVERSIGHTS AND OMISSIONS. The court may correct a clerical mistake or a mistake arising from oversight or omission whenever one is found in a judgment, order, or other part of the record. The court may do so on motion or on its own, with or without notice.”
Rule 72 Fed. R. Civ. P. | Magistrate Judges: Pretrial Order
“(2) Objections. Within 14 days after being served with a copy of the recommended disposition, a party may serve and file specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations.”
Rule 3-1 11th Cir. R. | Failure to Object to a Magistrate Judge’s Findings or Recommendations.
"A party failing to object to a magistrate judge’s findings or recommendations contained in a report and recommendation in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) waives the right to challenge on appeal the district court’s order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions if the party was informed of the time period for objecting and the consequences on appeal for failing to object. In the absence of a proper objection, however, the court may review on appeal for plain error if necessary in the interests of justice."
TBDcase. USFLMD. Pro Se Filing. 2020. §1981 Case (+ §760 FS). Clear Error + Contrary to Law
USNYWD. 2007. Attorney Filing. Criminal Case. Response. Standard of Review + Governing Law.
Standard of Review: Pursuant to Rule 72(a) Fed. R. Civ. P., a district court “[must] modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law”.
Definition for "Clearly Erroneous" “[A] finding is ‘clearly erroneous’ when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” - Holton v City of Thomasville, 425 F. 3d 1325 (11th Cir. 2005)
Your comment about judges enjoying absolute immunity is documented and proven as false. Old constitutional law, our current state and federal laws, the rules of judicial conduct but MOST-OF-ALL the judges own Department Of Justice (DOJ) Laws, Rules, Regulations and Procedures clearly state
- 11/2/23 | Anonymous User 047-***-***-138
Thank you for your informational comment. You’ve suppled the type of user interaction that TBD believes will add more value/resources to other site visitors. So, please enjoy the points you’ve received; and read further to see how you’ve made a difference...
Okay, to address your comment: The comment from above is not false. Instead, it is true (unfortunately). TBD derived it from multiple appellate decisions from the judiciary itself. You can find such material in:
So, in addressing your comment TBD has added more content to this page. Reason: TBD agrees with you that more information is needed on that blurb about absolute immunity. However, TBD has kept the original statement unchanged (reason: the statement is true; until/unless the government abolishes our judges' self-made absolute judicial immunity).
Footnote: Your comment seemed to cutoff at 290 characters (which seems like a mistake because comments permit 1,024 characters). So, if there’s more information that you wanted to supply then please add another comment.
- 11/3/23 | TextBookDiscrimination.com