MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

J. PHIL GILBERT, District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court for case management purposes. On December 4, 2013, the parties informed the Court that they had settled this case, so on the following day, the Court entered a "60-day order" directing the Clerk of Court to enter judgment of dismissal in 60 days (Doc. 51). The Court noted that 60 days appeared to be sufficient time to consummate the settlement, that is, to reduce it to writing for approval by all parties, but said that the parties could petition the Court for more time if they could not accomplish this in 60 days. The plaintiff petitioned for such a delay indicating that although the settlement agreement had been signed, there were disagreements about performance of the agreement (Doc. 52). The Court extended the dismissal date by 60 days, until April 7, 2014 (Doc. 53). The plaintiff is now before the Court asking it to enforce the settlement agreement and asking for another extension for entry of a dismissal order, citing the same disagreement about performance of the settlement agreement (Doc. 54). The defendant has responded to the motion (Doc. 56).

It is apparent that the parties have settled the dispute brought before the Court in the pleadings in this case and that the settlement has been reduced to writing. Thus, the claims in this case are over, and any remaining dispute is a contract dispute over the settlement agreement. Accordingly, the Court DENIES the motion for enforcement and further delay in the entry of judgment (Doc. 54) and DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to enter judgment of dismissal as previously directed — on April 7, 2014.

IT IS SO ORDERED.