Durham v. Niffenegger et al

Filing 192

ORDER consistent with this authority, the parties agreement, and the interest of judicial economy, defendants Motion to Tax Costs (Doc. 186 ) and Motion for Attorneys Fees (Doc. 187 ) are hereby STAYED pending the disposition of plaintiff's appeal. Within 30 days of the disposition of such appeal, plaintiffs shall respond to defendants motions, if warranted. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz on 1/31/2024. (art)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
DAVID DURHAM,
Plaintiff,
vs.
DETECTIVE JERRY NIFFENEGGER, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 1:18-cv-91
Hopkins, J.
Litkovitz, M.J.
ORDER

On December 6, 2023, the District Judge issued an Opinion and Order granting defendants’
motion for summary judgment, and the Clerk entered judgment in their favor. (Docs. 184, 185).
Plaintiff has appealed these entries. (See Docs. 189, 190). This matter is before the Court on
defendants’ Motion to Tax Costs (Doc. 186) and Motion for Attorney’s Fees (Doc. 187). The
parties have filed a Joint Memorandum of Understanding, docketed as a response, stating their
agreement to stay these motions pending the disposition of plaintiff’s appeal. (Doc. 191).
“[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to
control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for
counsel, and for litigants.” Gray v. Bush, 628 F.3d 779, 785 (6th Cir. 2010) (quoting Landis v.
North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)). Consistent with this authority, the parties’
agreement, and the interest of judicial economy, defendants’ Motion to Tax Costs (Doc. 186) and
Motion for Attorney’s Fees (Doc. 187) are hereby STAYED pending the disposition of plaintiff's
appeal. Within 30 days of the disposition of such appeal, plaintiffs shall respond to defendants’
motions, if warranted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
1/31/2024
Date: __________________

_______________________
Karen L. Litkovitz
United States Magistrate Judge