NIBLACK v. MALBREEN et al
Filing
66
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER that the Clerk shall administratively terminate Defendants' pending 57 Motion for Summary Judgment; if the global settlement conference is unsuccessful, Defendants shall submit a letter to this Court requesting that their Motion be re-instated. The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Order upon Plaintiff by regular U.S. mail. Signed by Judge Brian R. Martinotti on 4/2/2018. (mps)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
STANLEY L. NIBLACK,
Plaintiff,
v.
SCO MALBREEN, et al.,
Defendants.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Civil Action No. 15-5298 (BRM)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
THIS MATTER is opened to the Court by pro se Plaintiff Stanley L. Niblack (“Plaintiff”),
upon the filing of a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1).
Currently pending before the Court is an unopposed Motion for Summary Judgment filed
by Defendants Gary M. Lanigan, John Powell, SCO Togno, and SCO Barnes. (ECF No. 57.) In
light of the global settlement conference scheduled for May 7, 2018 in all of Plaintiff’s open civil
matters, the success of which would render said Motion moot, the Court will administratively
terminate the Motion. If the settlement conference is unsuccessful, Defendants are advised to
submit a letter to this Court requesting that their Motion be re-instated.
Accordingly,
IT IS it is on this 2nd day of April 2018,
ORDERED that the Clerk shall ADMINISTRATIVELY TERMINATE Defendants’
pending Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 57); if the global settlement conference is
unsuccessful, Defendants shall submit a letter to this Court requesting that their Motion be
re-instated; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Order upon Plaintiff by
regular U.S. mail.
/s/ Brian R. Martinotti
HON. BRIAN R. MARTINOTTI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?