Filed: Apr. 30, 2014
Latest Update: Apr. 30, 2014
Summary: ORDER JAMES A. TEILBORG, Sr., District Judge. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Joe Newman's Motion for Settlement Conference (Doc. 39). The Court now rules on the motion. Plaintiff's motion is somewhat confusing to follow, and begins with a number of factual clarifications regarding which the Plaintiff wishes to inform the Court. (Doc. 39 at 1). Plaintiff then follows up with rhetorical questions concerning his ability to obtain counsel and speculation regarding his upcoming surgery. ( I
Summary: ORDER JAMES A. TEILBORG, Sr., District Judge. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Joe Newman's Motion for Settlement Conference (Doc. 39). The Court now rules on the motion. Plaintiff's motion is somewhat confusing to follow, and begins with a number of factual clarifications regarding which the Plaintiff wishes to inform the Court. (Doc. 39 at 1). Plaintiff then follows up with rhetorical questions concerning his ability to obtain counsel and speculation regarding his upcoming surgery. ( Id..
More
ORDER
JAMES A. TEILBORG, Sr., District Judge.
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Joe Newman's Motion for Settlement Conference (Doc. 39). The Court now rules on the motion.
Plaintiff's motion is somewhat confusing to follow, and begins with a number of factual clarifications regarding which the Plaintiff wishes to inform the Court. (Doc. 39 at 1). Plaintiff then follows up with rhetorical questions concerning his ability to obtain counsel and speculation regarding his upcoming surgery. (Id.) ("So how can it be said that it is the plaintiff's option to have counsel?" and "In the event if all does not go well with a complicated surgery, where plaintiff cannot make a timely reply by 06/04/2014, what happens then?"). The Court declines Plaintiff's invitations to speculate on the outcomes of his life events.
Plaintiff also requests Defendants disclose certain video evidence in the case, but this request is not directed at the Court. (Id. at 1-2). Plaintiff's sole request for the Court is as follows:
If a settlement can not be reached with defendants or defendant's counsel, the plaintiff request [sic] for Court assistance in settlement efforts for a just and speedy and inexpensive settlement.
(Id. at 2). Accordingly, the Court construes Plaintiff's motion as a motion for referral to a
Magistrate Judge for a settlement conference. The Court refers parties to a Magistrate Judge only if the request is jointly made. Therefore, Plaintiff's request is denied without prejudice to reurging it if both parties agree it would be beneficial.
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Settlement Conference (Doc. 39) is denied without prejudice.
