POLLOCK v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS STATE OF FLORIDA
Filing
34
ORDER FOR DISMISSAL - The pending motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 19 , is DENIED as moot. The clerk must enter judgment stating, "The parties are ordered to comply with their settlement agreement. The court reserves jurisdiction to enforce the order to comply with the settlement agreement. All claims in this case are voluntarily dismissed with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41." Signed by JUDGE MARK E WALKER on 1/24/2014. (dlt)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TALLAHASSEE DIVISION
DANICA POLLOCK,
Plaintiff,
v.
CASE NO. 4:13-cv-41-MW/CAS
STATE OF FLORIDA,
DEPARTM ENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Defendant.
____________________________/
ORDER FOR DISMISSAL
Plaintiff has filed a Notice of Resolution, ECF No.33, indicating that this
case has been settled. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED:
1. The parties must comply with their settlement agreement.
2. All claims other than for enforcement of the settlement agreement are
voluntarily dismissed with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41.
3. Jurisdiction is retained to enforce the order to comply with the settlement
agreement.
4.
The pending motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 19, is DENIED
as moot.
1
5. The clerk must enter judgment stating, “The parties are ordered to
comply with their settlement agreement. The court reserves jurisdiction to enforce
the order to comply with the settlement agreement. All claims in this case are
voluntarily dismissed with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41.”
6. The clerk must close the file.
7. A party who objects to the terms of this order or the judgment to be
entered based on this order must file a timely motion to alter or amend under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e).
SO ORDERED on January 24, 2014.
s/Mark E. Walker
United States District Judge
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?