McCray v. Olive
ORDER denying 32 Motion for Writ of Mandamus and Motion for Arrest of Defendant Olive [32-1]. Signed by Honorable David C. Bramlette, III on 10/27/2017 (ECW)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
OTIS OLIVER McCRAY
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:17-cv-11(DCB)(MTP)
KELLY SUZANNE OLIVE
This cause is before the Court on plaintiff Otis Oliver
McCray’s “Writ of Mandamus” (docket entry 32), which the Court
construes as a motion for writ of mandamus; and on the plaintiff’s
“Affidavit for Arrest” (docket entry 32-1).
On May 22, 2017, this Court entered a Final Judgment as to the
plaintiff’s federal claims, dismissing his claims under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 with prejudice.
On the same day, the Court remanded the
plaintiff’s state law claims to the Circuit Court of Wilkinson
County, Mississippi, thereby closing this civil action.
On October 4, 2017, the plaintiff filed his “Writ of Mandamus”
asking this Court to compel the Circuit Court of Wilkinson County
to “comply with the order of remand.”
See docket entry 32.
pleading cites no grounds and fails to show that the Circuit Court
has refused to comply with this Court’s order of remand.
Docket entry 32 also includes an attachment titled “Affidavit
for Arrest,” seeking the arrest of defendant Kelly Suzanne Olive
for civil contempt. Again, the pleading cites no grounds and fails
to show any civil contempt on the part of the defendant.
Consequently, the motion for “Writ of Mandamus” and the
“Affidavit for Arrest” must be denied.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the plaintiff Otis Oliver McCray’s
“Writ of Mandamus” (docket entry 32), which the Court construes as
a motion for writ of mandamus, is DENIED;
construes as a motion for the arrest of defendant Kelly Suzanne
Olive for civil contempt, is DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this the 27th day of October, 2017.
/s/ David Bramlette
UNITED STATES DISTRICT 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?