Oliver v. County of Effingham et al

Filing 52

ORDER granting 45 Motion to Stay; granting 17 Motion to Stay; denying as moot 21 Motion for Extension of Time; granting 29 Motion to Stay. All discovery deadlines in this case are Stayed until 14 days after the Court renders a decision on the dispositive motions. Signed by Magistrate Judge G. R. Smith on 9/21/18. (wwp)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
SAVANNAH DIVISION
ANTHONY OLIVER
Plaintiff,
v.
COUNTY OF EFFINGHAM, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CV418-120

ORDER
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, this 21st day of September, 2018.

2