Hebb v. City of Asheville, North Carolina et al

Filing 42

ORDER that the 41 Unopposed Motion to Waive the Requirement of, or Alternatively to Set the Amount of, a Supersedeas Bond is GRANTED and execution of the January 21, 2025 Amended Judgment is STAYED through and including the date the mandate relative to Defendants' pending appeal is issued by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Case No. 24-1383. The requirement that a supersedeas bond or other security be posted is WAIVED. Signed by US Magistrate Judge W. Carleton Metcalf on 1/29/2025. (kby)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ASHEVILLE DIVISION 1:22-cv-00222-MR-WCM ZACHARY HEBB ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, v. CITY OF ASHEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA, and BEN WOODY individually and in his official capacity as Director of Development Services Department for City of Asheville, North Carolina Defendants. _______________________________ ORDER This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Unopposed Motion to Waive the Requirement of, or Alternatively to Set the Amount of, a Supersedeas Bond. Doc. 41. The Motion has been referred to the undersigned by the presiding district judge for disposition. Having reviewed the Motion, the record in this case, and applicable authorities, the Court finds that the Motion should be allowed. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT: 1. The Unopposed Motion to Waive the Requirement of, or Alternatively to Set the Amount of, a Supersedeas Bond (Doc. 41) is GRANTED and execution of the January 21, 2025 Amended Judgment is STAYED 1 through and including the date the mandate relative to Defendants’ pending appeal is issued by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Case No. 24-1383. 2. The requirement that a supersedeas bond or other security be posted is WAIVED. Signed: January 29, 2025 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?