# Salcedo

> District Court, M.D. Florida · July 13, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11410951

## Case

- **Full name:** Altagracia Salcedo v. The District Board of Trustees Southwestern State College, Florida; The District Board of Trustees for Florida Southwestern State College
- **Court:** District Court, M.D. Florida
- **Decided:** July 13, 2026
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11410951

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION

ALTAGRACIA SALCEDO,

Plaintiff, Case No. 2:24-cv-1141-KCD-NPM

v.

THE DISTRICT BOARD OF
TRUSTEES SOUTHWESTERN
STATE COLLEGE, FLORIDA,
THE DISTRICT BOARD OF
TRUSTEES FOR FLORIDA
SOUTHWESTERN STATE
COLLEGE,

Defendant,
/

ORDER
Not long after this case started, the Court entered a Case Management
and Scheduling Order. (Doc. 16.)1 That order laid out a straightforward, step-
by-step procedure for summary judgment briefing: if a party moves for
summary judgment, it must list the material facts in numbered paragraphs.
(Id. at 5.) If the opposing party disagrees, it must mirror those numbered
paragraphs, admitting or denying each one with pinpoint citations to the
record. (Id.)
In May 2026, Defendant moved for summary judgment. It followed the
rules. (See Doc. 28.) Plaintiff filed a response but left the rulebook behind.

1 Unless otherwise indicated, all internal quotation marks, citations, case history, and
alterations have been omitted in this and later citations.
(Doc. 31.) Instead of matching Defendant’s numbered paragraphs, Plaintiff
submitted a sprawling narrative of facts. That approach leaves the Court to

sift through the record and guess what remains in dispute. Not going to
happen.
This Court’s scheduling order is not a mere suggestion. The point-by-
point procedure exists for a highly practical purpose: it eliminates guesswork

and identifies the contested facts so we can apply the law appropriately.
Anything less turns summary judgment into “the proverbial search for a
needle in the haystack.” Libel v. Adventure Lands of Am., Inc., 482 F.3d 1028,
1032 (8th Cir. 2007). “Courts have neither the duty nor the time to

investigate the record in search of an unidentified genuine issue of material
fact to support a claim or defense.” Id.; see also United States v. Dunkel, 927
F.2d 955, 956 (7th Cir. 1991) (“Judges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles
buried in briefs.”).

Because Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court’s clear directives, her
response brief (Doc. 31) is STRICKEN. Plaintiff has until July 16, 2026, to
try again. The new response must strictly follow the scheduling order. If it
does not, the Court will strike the filing for a second time and consider

Defendant’s motion entirely unopposed.
ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on July 13, 2026.

Kyle C. Dudek
United States District Judge

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11410951. Public record. Not legal advice.