Filed: Dec. 28, 2017
Latest Update: Dec. 28, 2017
Summary: ORDER REQUIRING A RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S FILING REGARDING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT (ECF No. 39) STANLEY A. BOONE , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff Shauntae Taylor is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. On September 18, 2017 a settlement conference was held in this matter before Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe, at which this case settled. (ECF No. 32.) On September 20, 2017, a joint stipulation for dismissal with prejudice was fi
Summary: ORDER REQUIRING A RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S FILING REGARDING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT (ECF No. 39) STANLEY A. BOONE , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff Shauntae Taylor is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. On September 18, 2017 a settlement conference was held in this matter before Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe, at which this case settled. (ECF No. 32.) On September 20, 2017, a joint stipulation for dismissal with prejudice was fil..
More
ORDER REQUIRING A RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S FILING REGARDING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
(ECF No. 39)
STANLEY A. BOONE, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff Shauntae Taylor is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On September 18, 2017 a settlement conference was held in this matter before Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe, at which this case settled. (ECF No. 32.) On September 20, 2017, a joint stipulation for dismissal with prejudice was filed, (ECF No. 34), and on September 21, 2017, this case was closed, (ECF No. 35).
On November 13, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for sanctions, arguing that he has not been compensated according to the terms and conditions of the settlement agreement reached between the parties. (ECF No. 36.) On November 29, 2017, defense counsel filed a declaration in response asserting that Plaintiff's motion was premature, and that he had since receive the agreed-upon property as part of the terms of the September 18, 2017 settlement agreement. (ECF No. 38.) On December 27, 2017, the Court, having received no reply from Plaintiff disputing the contents of the declaration or any other communication from Plaintiff, issued an order denying Plaintiff's motion. (ECF No. 40.)
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff's response to defense counsel's declaration, dated December 12, 2017. (ECF No. 39.) Although the proof of mailing for Plaintiff's response is dated December 12, 2017, Plaintiff's response was not received until after the Court issued its December 27, 2017 order.
Plaintiff's response asserts that he has received some, but not all, of the agreed-upon property as part of the terms of the September 18, 2017 settlement agreement. (ECF No. 39.) Plaintiff also asserts that he has not received a monetary portion of the terms of that agreement, and seeks an update on the status of that matter. (Id.) Plaintiff seeks complete fulfillment of the settlement terms, or sanctions. (Id.)
The Court finds it appropriate to require a response to Plaintiff's filing. Due to the holidays and related mail-delays, the Court will allow an extended period of time for the response and any reply.
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Gregory shall file a response to Plaintiff's response to the declaration, (ECF No. 39), within twenty-one (21) days from the date of this order. Plaintiff's reply, if any, shall be filed within fourteen (14) days following service of a response.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
