SHUPER v. CHANDLER et al
Filing
55
ORDER ON FIFTH AND SIXTH APPEAL re:denying 53 Appeal from Magistrate Judge Decision to District Court; denying 54 Appeal from Magistrate Judge Decision to District Court By JUDGE GEORGE Z. SINGAL. (mjlt)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
ALLA I. SHUPER,
Plaintiff,
v.
REBECCA CHANDLER, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 2:13-cv-110-GZS
ORDER ON FIFTH AND SIXTH APPEALS
Before the Court are the Fifth and Sixth Appeals filed by pro se Plaintiff Alla Shuper
(ECF Nos. 53 & 54). The Court has reviewed the briefing and documents filed in conjunction
with those appeals as well as the June 26, 2013 Order (ECF No. 44) entered by Magistrate Judge
Kravchuk. Additionally, at the request of pro se Plaintiff Shuper and without objection from
Defendants Rebecca Chandler, Peter Lewis and John Desjardins (“Defendants”), the Court
reviewed the transcript of the settlement conference.
The Court notes that pro se Plaintiff Shuper and Defendants achieved settlement of this
case on June 25, 2013. (See Notice of Settlement and Procedural Order Re: Settlement (ECF
No. 41).) Pursuant to the Court’s June 25, 2013 Procedural Order, the involved parties have
ninety (90) days from June 25, 2013 to complete settlement thereby providing a deadline of
September 23, 2013 for the filing of a stipulation of dismissal. (See id.)
Given these future deadlines and in the absence of having reviewed the parties’ actual
settlement agreement, it is not clear what relief pro se Plaintiff Shuper seeks from this Court via
her Fifth and Sixth Appeals (ECF Nos. 53 & 54). However, to the extent these appeals can be
construed as seeking enforcement of the settlement agreement, the Court, having conducted a de
novo review of the entire available record, DENIES both Appeals (ECF Nos. 53 & 54).
At this point, it appears that both sides are still working to finalize and effectuate the
settlement previously reached. If the settlement is not complete within ninety days, the parties
are free to file a joint motion to extend the time to complete settlement. To the extent a dispute
exists at the end of the ninety day period, any party is free to file a motion to enforce the
settlement agreement. However, at this juncture and on the record presented, the Court finds no
basis for ordering any party to take specific action in order to complete and effectuate the
settlement reached on June 25, 2013.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ George Z. Singal
United States District Judge
Dated this 8th day of July, 2013.
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?