Oliver v. County of Effingham, 4:18-cv-120. (2018)
Court: District Court, S.D. Georgia
Number: infdco20180924944
Visitors: 32
Filed: Sep. 21, 2018
Latest Update: Sep. 21, 2018
Summary: ORDER G.R. SMITH , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff Anthony Oliver and defendants Richard Rafter and Vernon Keenan have requested to stay proceedings in this case. See doc. 17 (Oliver's Motion to Stay); doc. 29 (Rafter's Motion to Stay); doc. 45 (Kennan's Motion to Stay). The resolution of these motions was complicated by several "motions" to dismiss various claims and defendants filed by Oliver. See doc. 16; doc. 38; doc. 47; doc. 50 (Motion to Withdraw doc. 47). What is clear from the fl
Summary: ORDER G.R. SMITH , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff Anthony Oliver and defendants Richard Rafter and Vernon Keenan have requested to stay proceedings in this case. See doc. 17 (Oliver's Motion to Stay); doc. 29 (Rafter's Motion to Stay); doc. 45 (Kennan's Motion to Stay). The resolution of these motions was complicated by several "motions" to dismiss various claims and defendants filed by Oliver. See doc. 16; doc. 38; doc. 47; doc. 50 (Motion to Withdraw doc. 47). What is clear from the flu..
More
ORDER
G.R. SMITH, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff Anthony Oliver and defendants Richard Rafter and Vernon Keenan have requested to stay proceedings in this case. See doc. 17 (Oliver's Motion to Stay); doc. 29 (Rafter's Motion to Stay); doc. 45 (Kennan's Motion to Stay). The resolution of these motions was complicated by several "motions" to dismiss various claims and defendants filed by Oliver. See doc. 16; doc. 38; doc. 47; doc. 50 (Motion to Withdraw doc. 47). What is clear from the flurry of motions is that a stay of this case is warranted. Accordingly, the various stay requests are GRANTED. Doc. 17; doc. 29; doc. 45. All discovery deadlines in this case are STAYED until 14 days after the Court renders a decision on those dispositive motions. Deadlines for responsive briefing of issues related to the motions to dismiss remain in place; the parties should timely submit any further briefing on those motions.
Also pending before the Court is Oliver's request for an extension of the deadline to respond to defendant Rafter's Motion to Dismiss. Doc. 21. Defendant Rafter responded to deny allegations Oliver made in bringing that motion. Doc. 31. He did not, however, object to the underlying extension. See id. at 1. Oliver replied, indicating that he intended to file further motions. See doc. 33 at 2. Rafter and Oliver, jointly, filed a Motion to Dismiss Rafter from the case. See doc. 47. Oliver then filed a motion to "withdraw" his stipulation because of "newly discovered evidence." Doc. 50. Defendant Rafter opposes that motion. Doc. 51. As the Court expects further briefing on the status of the claim against Rafter, the original extension request is DENIED as moot. Doc. 21.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle