Washington v. Martin Marietta Materials, Inc.

Filing 7

ORDER granting, with modification, 6 Motion to Stay. This matter is stayed until 2/3/2012. The parties shall file a CIAC on or before 2/3/2012. Signed by Magistrate Judge David Keesler on 12/6/11. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(gpb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:11-CV-529-FDW-DCK
JOHN WASHINGTON, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
MARTIN MARIETTA MATERIALS, INC.,
Defendant.
________________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on pro se Plaintiff’s “Motion To Dismiss ”
(Document No. 6) filed November 14, 2011. This motion has been referred to the undersigned
Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and immediate review is appropriate. Having
carefully considered the motion, the record, and applicable authority, the undersigned will grant the
motion, with modification.
As an initial matter the undersigned notes that though captioned as a motion to dismiss, the
relief Plaintiff seeks is “a stay of proceedings for 90 days in order to allow [him] to recover
medically and find counsel.” (Document No. 6, p.2). Plaintiff’s request to dismiss pursuant to Rule
41(a)(2) is actually presented as an alternative request, if the Court declines to issue a stay. Id. As
such, the undersigned will construe pro se Plaintiff’s pending motion as a “Motion To Stay.”
Defendant, having received Plaintiff’s motion before the Court received it, consented to
dismissal before Plaintiff’s motion was even filed. (Document No. 5). Defendant asserts that a
dismissal would better accomplish the goal of judicial efficiency than a stay of the proceedings. Id.
Under the circumstances of this case, the undersigned respectfully disagrees.
For good cause shown, the undersigned will order a stay of all proceedings. At the end of
the stay, the parties shall file a certification of initial attorney’s conference, whether or not Plaintiff

has hired counsel.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Motion To Dismiss,” construed by the
Court as a “Motion To Stay” (Document No. 6), is GRANTED. This matter is STAYED until
February 3, 2012.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that on or before February 3, 2012, the parties shall file a
Certification of Initial Attorney’s Conference pursuant to Local Rule 16.1.
SO ORDERED.
Signed: December 6, 2011

2