Ballard v. Hatley et al

Filing 100

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 98 Motion for Writ of Mandamus, which the Court construes as a motion to enforce settlement. Signed by Chief Judge Martin Reidinger on 4/30/2021. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(khm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:17-CV-00393-MR
ROBERT BALLARD,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
)
FNU HATLEY, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
________________________________ )

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff’s “Writ of Mandumus,”
[Doc. 98], which the Court construes as a motion to enforce settlement, and
Defendants’ response [Doc. 99].
On January 14, 2021, a judicial settlement conference was conducted
in this matter and the parties reached an agreement resolving all issues in
this case. [See 1/14/2021 Docket Entry & Doc. 94]. On February 22, 2021,
the parties filed a Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice, stipulating to the
dismissal of all Defendants in this matter. [Doc. 95]. On March 22, 2021,
Plaintiff filed a letter with the Court indicating that he had not yet received the
settlements proceeds. [Doc. 97]. On April 22, 2021, Plaintiff filed a “Writ of
Mandamus” in which he reports that it had been over 90 days and he had
not received the settlement funds from Defendants, contrary to the parties’

agreement. [Doc. 98]. Plaintiff’s requests payment of the settlement funds
and asks for an additional $100.00 for his efforts in obtaining payment. [Id.].
In response, defense counsel states she received Plaintiff’s letter regarding
the settlement funds on April 22, 2021 and wrote Plaintiff the next day
advising him that the funds were in the process of being applied to his
account. [Doc. 99 at 1]. As such, it appears that Plaintiff’s motion to enforce
settlement is moot and will be denied.
ORDER
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to enforce
settlement [Doc. 98] is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Signed: April 30, 2021

2