Sharkey v. Humphreys County, Mississippi et al

Filing 30

ORDER STAYING CASE re 27 . Signed by Magistrate Judge Jane M. Virden on 5/2/19. (bfg)

Download PDF
        IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI GREENVILLE DIVISION     JAMES ARTHUR SHARKEY VS. PLAINTIFF CIVIL ACTION NO.: 4:18-CV-00017-DMB-JMV HUMPHREYS COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI; SHERIFF J.D. ROSEMAN, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SHERIFF OF HUMPHREYS COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT; AND DEPUTY SEAN WILLIAMS, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS DEPUTY SHERIFF OF HUMPHREYS COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT DEFENDANTS       ORDER STAYING CERTAIN PROCEEDINGS   Local Uniform Civil Rule 16(b)(3)(B) provides that “a motion asserting an immunity defense… stays the attorney conference and disclosure requirements and all discovery, pending the court’s ruling on the motion, including any appeal. Whether to permit discovery on issues related to a motion… [is a decision] committed to the discretion of the court, upon a motion by any party seeking relief.” L.U. CIV. R. 16(b)(3)(B). Defendants have filed a summary judgement motion based on qualified immunity. [Doc.     #27]. Accordingly, staying discovery in this case is appropriate at this time. IT IS, THERFORE, ORDERED that the aforementioned proceedings are hereby STAYED pending a ruling on the immunity motion. Defendants shall notify the undersigned magistrate judge within seven (7) days of a decision on the immunity motion and shall submit a proposed order lifting the stay. SO ORDERED this, May 2, 2019.   /s/ Jane M. Virden UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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?