Zachary C. Bolitho
How Judge Bolitho decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Polices the procedural prerequisites of removal and subject-matter jurisdiction strictly -- remands an untimely removal, and applies the well-pleaded-complaint rule so a state-law claim cannot be removed on the strength of a defendant's federal defenses.
“Because the notice of removal was untimely filed, this matter should be remanded to state court.”
Acts as a jurisdictional gatekeeper: where the only pleaded federal hook creates no private right of action (FERPA), there is no federal-question jurisdiction and the case is dismissed.
“because there is no private cause of action under FERPA-the only basis mentioned in the complaint for federal question jurisdiction-this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear Plaintiffs' case.”
Procedural preferences
Does not grant a dispositive motion merely because it is unopposed -- even on an unanswered summary-judgment motion he reviews the merits and supporting materials before recommending judgment.
“the Court cannot base the entry of summary judgment on the mere fact that the motion was unopposed, but, rather, must consider the merits of the motion.”
Manages the docket firmly but with notice: recommends dismissal for failure to comply with a court order only after a clear warning of the consequence and an unanswered show-cause order, and dismisses such cases without prejudice.
“it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that this case be DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff's failure to comply with an order of the Court.”
Requires concrete facts showing an agreement before a civil-conspiracy claim may proceed; shared criticism by dispersed speakers does not, by itself, make a coordinated unlawful agreement plausible.
“The second amended complaint alleges a sprawling conspiracy involving people from across the United States, all of whom share one thing in common—they have said negative things about Plaintiff Hales on social media. But there are insufficient facts alleged to plausibly show an agreement between all the members of the supposed conspiracy to engage in an unlawful act or a lawful act by unlawful means.”
Cautions
Holds pro se litigants to Rule 8 -- denies relief on 'shotgun pleadings' that fail to connect claims to particular defendants or to state the relief sought, treating that failure as defeating a preliminary-injunction movant's likelihood of success.
“Plaintiff's complaint is a "shotgun pleading." ... Plaintiff has not established a substantial likelihood of success on the merits as required to obtain a preliminary injunction.”
A party seeking service expenses under Rule 4(d) must prove entitlement and rebut a plausible claim that the waiver request was never received; an unanswered assertion of nonreceipt can establish good cause for not returning the waiver.
“Defendant Teschendorf has plausibly asserted that he never received the waiver documents, Plaintiffs have failed to rebut that assertion, and the failure to receive waiver documents provides good cause.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the undersigned RECOMMENDS that: 1. Plaintiff's "Motion to Determine Fee Amount," (Doc. 22), be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. 2. Plaintiff be awarded $2,120.00 in attorneys' fees.”
“Because Defendants' notice of removal was untimely and this Court lacks federal subject matter jurisdiction over the case, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that: 1. This case be REMANDED to state court; and 2. All pending motions be denied as moot.”
“the undersigned respectfully RECOMMENDS that: 1. Defendants Kight, Lord, and White's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 33) be GRANTED;”
“2. Defendants Kight, Lord, and White's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 26) be DENIED as moot;”
“it is, therefore, respectfully RECOMMENDED that: 1. Respondent's motion to dismiss (Doc. 12) be GRANTED. 2. Petitioner's habeas petition (Doc. 1) be DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.”
“the undersigned RECOMMENDS that: 1. Defendant William Husfelt's Motion to Dismiss, (Doc. 10), be GRANTED; 2. Defendants School Board for Santa Rosa County and Timothy Wyrosdick's Motion to Dismiss, (Doc. 17), be GRANTED; 3. Plaintiff's complaint be DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction;”
“Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's Motion for an Emergency Injunction (Doc. 3) be DENIED.”
Referral R&R for District Judge M. Casey Rodgers in a pro se prisoner Section 1983 case. After the plaintiff failed to submit ordered service copies of the amended complaint and then failed to respond to a show-cause order, Bolitho recommended sua sponte dismissal without prejudice for failure to comply with a court order under N.D. Fla. Local Rule 41.1. Grounding quote: "it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that this case be DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff's failure to comply with an order of the Court."
Referral R&R for District Judge M. Casey Rodgers in a removed personal-injury case. After the plaintiff's counsel withdrew, the plaintiff failed to retain new counsel or appear pro se as ordered and failed to respond to a show-cause order. Bolitho recommended sua sponte dismissal without prejudice for failure to comply with a court order, with the defendant's pending summary-judgment motion denied as moot. Grounding quote: "it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that: 1. This case be DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff's failure to comply with an order of the Court; and 2. All pending motions, including Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 14), be DENIED as moot."
Referral R&R for District Judge Lacey A. Collier in a pro se prisoner Section 1983 case naming eight 'Doe' defendants. After the plaintiff failed to identify them during discovery and failed to respond to a show-cause order, Bolitho recommended sua sponte dismissal of the eight defendants without prejudice for lack of prosecution, applying the rule against fictitious-party pleading. Grounding quote: "it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that the eight 'Doe' Defendants be DISMISSED without prejudice from this action."
“Defendant Helm’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 52) be GRANTED and the claims against Defendant Helm DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim;”
“Defendant Hughes’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 53) be GRANTED and the claims against Defendant Hughes DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim;”
“Defendant Matzkin’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 55) be GRANTED and the claims against Defendant Matzkin DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim;”
“Defendant Cook’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 61) be GRANTED and the claims against Defendant Cook DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim;”
“Defendant Lee’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 106) be GRANTED and the claims against Defendant Lee DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim;”
“Defendant Bonebrake’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 107) be GRANTED and the claims against Defendant Bonebrake DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim;”
“Defendant Keszey’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 110) be GRANTED and the claims against Defendant Keszey DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim;”
“Defendant Teschendorf’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 127) be GRANTED and the claims against Defendant Teschendorf DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim;”
“Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ “Motion for Expenses Incurred in Making Service and Attorney’s Fees Pursuant to Rule 4(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure” (Doc. 134) is DENIED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Case-level sample of the docket on which he is the assigned (deciding) judge -- 636(c)/consent and direct-assignment merits cases, distinct from his referral Report-and-Recommendation workload in the written-order analysis above. This assigned docket is predominantly Social Security disability appeals he decides as judge of record, plus removed diversity/personal-injury and insurance suits, an occasional copyright case, and criminal-duty magistrate matters (complaints). All sampled cases were filed after he took the bench in May 2022, so no inherited-predecessor caseload distorts the durations. These are filing-to-termination case durations, not motion-to-ruling latency.
Put Judge Bolitho's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Bolitho actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Bolitho's own signed orders and cites them.