GREEN v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE et al

Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PENSACOLA DIVISION
JONATHAN GARRETT GREEN,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 3:26-cv-1733-TKW-ZCB
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
REVENUE, et al.,
Defendants.
/
ORDER
This case is before the Court based on the magistrate judge’s Report and
Recommendation (R&R) (Doc. 6) and Plaintiff’s objections (Doc. 8). The Court
reviewed the issues raised in the objections de novo under 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1) and
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3), and based on that review, the Court agrees with the
magistrate judge’s determination that Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining
order should be denied.
None of the arguments in the objections persuade the Court that any of
Plaintiff’s claims are likely to succeed on the merits or that Plaintiff will suffer
irreparable harm if a TRO is not issued.1 Moreover, although Plaintiff faults the
1 In the interest of a prompt ruling on the objections (and the underlying TRO motion), the
Court sees no reason to separately address each of the “nine [alleged] reversible errors” raised in
the objections. Suffice it to say, the Court is not persuaded that any of the alleged errors (if they
Case 3:26-cv-01733-TKW-ZCB Document 11 Filed 03/23/26 Page 1 of 3

Page 2 of 3
magistrate judge for not addressing the “Catch-22” that Plaintiff is allegedly facing
because one state agency (DOR) is prohibiting him from driving while another state
agency (DCF) is effectively requiring him to drive himself and family members to
psychological examinations or face termination of his parental rights, the exhibits
submitted by Plaintiff refute that claim because they show that DCF has arranged
transportation so Plaintiff will not need to drive. See Doc. 10 at 104 (text message
from “Amber DCF,” stating “I’ve gotten all 3 of you a ride on your day. She will
pick you guys up on your days at 9 am.”).
ORDERED that:
1. The magistrate judge’s R&R is adopted and incorporated by reference
in this Order.
2. Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. 3) is
DENIED.
3. This case is returned to the magistrate judge for further pretrial
proceedings, including consideration of Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of
are errors) undermine the conclusion that Plaintiff has not his burden to obtain a TRO. For
example, even if is true that Plaintiff did not learn about the impending driver’s license suspension
until February 18 (rather than January 15), that does not help Plaintiff because he still waited
almost three weeks—and until only six days before the suspension was to take effect—to file this
action and seek a TRO, and under the circumstances, that delay still “militates against a finding of
irreparable harm.” Doc. 6 at 4 (quoting Wreal, LLC v. Amazon, Inc., 840 F.3d 1240, 1248 (11th
Cir. 2016)).
Case 3:26-cv-01733-TKW-ZCB Document 11 Filed 03/23/26 Page 2 of 3

Page 3 of 3
counsel (Doc. 7), motion to file exhibits under seal (Doc. 9),2 and his various
requests for accommodations (Doc. 8 at 1–2).
DONE AND ORDERED this 23rd day of March, 2026.
__________________________________
T. KENT WETHERELL, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2 The Court considered the redacted exhibits (Doc. 8) as part of its review of Plaintiff’s
objections, and for purposes of that review, the Court accepted Plaintiff’s characterization of what
the redacted information showed.
Case 3:26-cv-01733-TKW-ZCB Document 11 Filed 03/23/26 Page 3 of 3