Karrick v. North Carolina Department of Public Safety et al

Filing 78

ORDER: Plaintiff's 76 Motion that the Court Order Defendant to Pay Verdict is DENIED. Signed by Chief Judge Martin Reidinger on 7/24/2020. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.) (maf)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO. 1:14-cv-00082-MR

JESSE LEE KARRICK,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CHRISTOPHER NIVENS,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion that the Court
Order Defendant to Pay Verdict. [Doc. 76].
In his Motion, filed on March 30, 2020, Plaintiff notes that a jury verdict
awarded him $25,000 in damages but “Defendant has not made any attempt
to pay Plaintiff after admitting employment” and requests that the Court order
“Defendant to pay verdict.” [Id.].
The Court issued a Writ of Execution in favor of Plaintiff against
Defendant Christopher Nivens on August 15, 2018. [Doc. 69]. The U.S.
Marshals Service served the writ on Defendant Nivens but found “nothing to

Case 1:14-cv-00082-MR Document 78 Filed 07/24/20 Page 1 of 2

levy at residence owned by Nivens.” [Doc. 74 at 1].

Accordingly, the

Marshals have fulfilled the Writ of Execution as ordered by the Court.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69(a) provides that “[a] money
judgment is enforced by a writ of execution, unless the court directs
otherwise.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 69.

The procedure used in executing the

judgment “must accord with the procedure of the state where the court is
located.” Id.; see Atl. Purchasers, Inc. v. Aircraft Sales, Inc., 101 F.R.D. 779,
781–82 (W.D.N.C. 1984) (“To the extent permitted by due process, federal
courts have the inherent authority to enforce their own judgments.”).
However, “[d]istrict judges have no obligation to act as counsel or paralegal
to pro se litigants.” Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 231 (2004). Plaintiff has
received the benefit of the Marshals’ efforts to execute the judgment in this
case, [Doc. 74], and he may proceed with his own efforts to execute the
judgment in accordance with North Carolina law.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion [Doc. 76] is
DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Signed: July 24, 2020

2
Case 1:14-cv-00082-MR Document 78 Filed 07/24/20 Page 2 of 2