Combs et al v. Ashe County et al
Filing
102
ORDER re: 94 Notice of Appeal and Motion for Stay; affirming the Magistrate Judge's Order and denying Plaintiff's Motion to Stay. Signed by Senior Judge Graham Mullen on 11/20/2017. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(nvc)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
STATESVILLE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. 5:14-cv-00136
))
TOMMY R. COMBS
Plaintiff,
v.
ASHE COUNTY, et al,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Notice of Appeal and Motion for
Stay (Doc. No. 94). This issue is now ripe before this Court.
On August 15, 2014, Plaintiff filed claims on behalf of himself and his deceased brother,
R.J. Combs, related to the removal of property from their farm that occurred on August 16, 2011.
On July 6, 2016, the Court dismissed without prejudice all claims brought on behalf of R.J.
Combs for lack of standing. The Court noted that R.J.’s sister, Florence Combs Miller, was
appointed to be the executrix of R.J.’s estate and that she was not a party to the litigation.
Almost a year later, on July 5, 2017, Florence Combs Miller filed a Motion to Intervene. The
magistrate judge denied the Motion to Intervene, concluding that the “proposed intervention and
amendment are futile.”
Plaintiff and Ms. Miller timely filed their Notice of Appeal of this order. Pursuant to
Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a District Court reviewing an order on a
nondispositive motion must modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or
is contrary to law. In the Notice of Appeal of this order, Plaintiff and Ms. Miller claim that
“[t]here is no time limit on discrimination in North Carolina.” However, the magistrate judge
correctly found that any claims brought by the Estate of R.J. Combs would be futile because they
are brought well after the expiration of the statute of limitations. Thus, the decision of the
magistrate judge is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
Further, Plaintiff does not allege any reason why a stay would be warranted in this matter
nor does Plaintiff actually request a stay in the body of the Notice of Appeal.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the magistrate judge’s order is AFFIRMED and
that Plaintiff’s Motion for Stay is DENIED.
Signed: November 20, 2017
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?