Simmons v. Panola County, Mississippi et al

Filing 17

ORDER granting 15 Motion for an order lifting stay. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jane M. Virden on 4/13/17. (ncb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
OXFORD DIVISION
HARRY W. SIMMONS
V.

PLAINTIFF
CAUSE NO. 3:17CV044-MPM-JMV

PANOLA COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI,
JOHN THOMAS and COLE FLINT,
in their individual capacities

DEFENDANTS

AGREED ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED
MOTION TO LIFT STAY AND PERMIT CASE TO PROCEED
THIS MATTER HAVING COME before the Court on the Unopposed Motion to Lift Stay
and Permit Case to Proceed [D.E. 15], and the Court considering the Motion and finding that the
parties are in agreement as to the relief requested therein, does hereby ORDER as follows:
On April 4, defendants Thomas and Cole filed their respective Motions to Dismiss [D.E. 10
and 12], asserting that they were immune under the Mississippi Tort Claims Act for the state-law,
individual capacity claims asserted against them.
On April 5, 2017, this Court entered its Order Staying Certain Proceedings [D.E. 14]
pursuant to Local Uniform Civil Rule 16(b)(3)(B) which provides that motions asserting immunity
defenses will stay the attorney conference, disclosure requirements and all discovery pending the
Court’s ruling on the motion(s).
Local Uniform Civil Rule 16(b)(3)(B) provides as follows:
Whether to permit discovery on issues related to the motion and
whether to permit any portion of the case to proceed pending
resolution of the motion are decisions committed to the discretion of
the court, upon motion by any party seeking relief.
The defendants, joined by plaintiff, have moved to permit the case to proceed into pre-discovery
D0741661.1

matters and general discovery pending resolutions of the pending Motions to Dismiss by Thomas
and Flint [D.E. 10 and 12].
Pursuant to this Court’s discretion granted by Local Uniform Civil Rule 16(b)(3)(B), and
noting the agreement of the parties to proceed, this Court hereby Orders that the stay provided in its
“Order Staying Certain Proceedings” [D.E. 14] is hereby lifted and that the case will proceed on the
usual case management track with a Rule 16 Initial Order to be entered as soon as possible and
subsequent discovery management to follow. The Court finds that defendants Thomas and Flint’s
assertion of immunity is not waived by entry of this Order nor their agreement thereto.
SO ORDERED, this the 13th day of April, 2017.

/s/ Jane M. Virden
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Agreed to:
/s/Mitchell O. Driskell, III
WILTON V. BYARS, III - BAR #9335
MITCHELL O. DRISKELL, III - BAR # 100079
Attorneys for Defendants
/s/Jim Waide
JIM WAIDE - BAR#6857
Attorney for Plaintiff

D0741661.1

2