Seltzer

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TAMPA DIVISION

CHRISTOPHER M. SELTEZER, II,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No: 8:26-cv-1514-MSS-AAS

CHRISTOPHER MASSON, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court for consideration of Plaintiff’s Verified

Amended Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary

Injunction. (Dkt. 8) On June 26, 2026, United States Magistrate Judge Amanda

Arnold Sansone issued a Report and Recommendation. (Dkt. 32) Judge Sansone

recommended that Plaintiff’s Verified Amended Emergency Motion for Temporary

Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction be denied. (Id.) Plaintiff filed objections

to the Report and Recommendation. (Dkt. 36) Defendants filed a Joint Response

(CITE)Upon consideration of all relevant filings, case law, and being otherwise fully

advised, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Plaintiff’s Verified Amended Emergency

Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction.

In the Eleventh Circuit, a district judge may accept, reject, or modify the

magistrate judge’s report and recommendation after conducting a careful and

complete review of the findings and recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1);

Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732, 732 (11th Cir. 1982). A district judge “shall

make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed

findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).

This requires that the district judge “give fresh consideration to those issues to which

specific objection has been made by a party.” Jeffrey S. v. State Bd. of Educ., 896 F.2d

507, 512 (11th Cir.1990) (quoting H.R. 1609, 94th Cong. § 2 (1976)). In the absence

of specific objections, there is no requirement that a district judge review factual

findings de novo, Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993), and the

court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and

recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The district judge reviews legal

conclusions de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See Cooper-Houston v.

Southern Ry., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994).

Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. (Dkt.

36) First, Plaintiff asserts that defense counsel intentionally hid facts from the

Magistrate Judge during the hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Injunction

and Motion for Preliminary Injunction which resulted in the Magistrate Judge having

insufficient information to consider the facts and issues relevant to Plaintiff’s motions.

Second, Plaintiff alleges that the due process opportunity which the County has

scheduled for Plaintiff’s benefit—a Code Enforcement Board hearing which has yet to

take place—would provide deficient due process because a Code Enforcement officer

who is a material witness in the Code Enforcement proceedings, Defendant Masson,

has secured a state court stalking injunction prohibiting Plaintiff from coming near the

Code Enforcement officer. Finally, Plaintiff alleges that during the hearing, the

Magistrate Judge denied his due process rights by having Defendants’ counsel provide

a copy of the Code Enforcement Notice of Hearing to Plaintiff in the courtroom.

Considering these allegations de novo, the Court finds that none of these

challenges have merit. First, it is clear that Plaintiff can discharge his code enforcement

violations by moving his RV and purchasing a tag. Any other challenges concerning

the Property were directed to the property owner and have been resolved. If that is

incorrect, it still does not warrant the extraordinary relief of a temporary restraining

order. To the extent there are disputes about the matter, they may be resolved in the

normal course in litigation, if the matter may proceed at all. The record reflects that a

hearing on the Code Enforcement violation is scheduled for July 30, 2026. If Plaintiff

prevails at the hearing this matter will be rendered moot. If he does not prevail, this

federal proceeding will also likely be rendered moot, or at least premature, unless and

until all state-level administrative remedies are exhausted.

Second, Defendants have resolved any matter about the due process limitations

that may have been occasioned by the existence of the stay away injunction. The

victim-target of the injunction will not be present during Plaintiff’s portion of the

hearing, so no insurmountable limitations to Plaintiff’s appearance at the hearing exist

any longer.

Finally, the Magistrate Judge’s efforts to ensure that Plaintiff received timely

notice of the hearing were just that. They cannot be reasonably construed to be an

“ambush” of Plaintiff and certainly cannot serve as a basis to reject the Magistrate

Judge’s sound reasoning in denying the extraordinary relief of a temporary restraining

order in advance of the state court remedy to which Plaintiff is entitled and for which

a hearing is scheduled to occur post haste.

Upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation, in conjunction with

an independent examination of the file, the Court finds that the Report and

Recommendation should be adopted, confirmed, and approved in all respects.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

1. The Report and Recommendation, (Dkt. 32), is CONFIRMED and

ADOPTED as part of this Order.

2. Plaintiff's Objections to the Report and Recommendation, (Dkt.

36), ace OVERRULED.

3. Plaintiffs Verified Amended Emergency Motion for Temporary

Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, (Dkt. 8), is

DENIED.

DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, this 27th day of July 2026.

Copies furnished to: 7) / (A 4

Counsel of Record lah Clk be ___

Any Unrepresented Person UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE