WARE v. HALL, 3:12CV00084 JLH/JTR. (2013)
Court: District Court, E.D. Arkansas
Number: infdco20130607925
Visitors: 22
Filed: Jun. 06, 2013
Latest Update: Jun. 06, 2013
Summary: ORDER J. LEON HOLMES, District Judge. On June 4, 2013, the parties appeared for an evidentiary hearing/bench trial. At the beginning of that hearing, the parties announced that they were close to reaching a full settlement of all the claims Ware has raised against each of the defendants in this lawsuit. The parties subsequently agreed to a settlement and Ware executed the settlement agreement in the courtroom. The Court then questioned Ware to ensure that he understood and consented to all te
Summary: ORDER J. LEON HOLMES, District Judge. On June 4, 2013, the parties appeared for an evidentiary hearing/bench trial. At the beginning of that hearing, the parties announced that they were close to reaching a full settlement of all the claims Ware has raised against each of the defendants in this lawsuit. The parties subsequently agreed to a settlement and Ware executed the settlement agreement in the courtroom. The Court then questioned Ware to ensure that he understood and consented to all ter..
More
ORDER
J. LEON HOLMES, District Judge.
On June 4, 2013, the parties appeared for an evidentiary hearing/bench trial. At the beginning of that hearing, the parties announced that they were close to reaching a full settlement of all the claims Ware has raised against each of the defendants in this lawsuit. The parties subsequently agreed to a settlement and Ware executed the settlement agreement in the courtroom. The Court then questioned Ware to ensure that he understood and consented to all terms contained in the settlement agreement.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
1. The case is dismissed with prejudice pursuant to settlement.
2. It is certified, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an in forma pauperis appeal would not be taken in good faith.
Source: Leagle
