Greenlee v. Sandy's Towing and Recovery Inc. et al

Filing 71

DECISION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR STAY PENDING APPEAL 70 . Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz on 11/15/2016. (kpf)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
KIEL GREENLEE, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
-

vs

:

-

Case No. 3:16-cv-064
Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz

SANDY’S TOWING AND RECOVERY,
INC., et al.,
Defendants.

:

DECISION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR
STAY PENDING APPEAL

This case is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Appeal
(ECF No. 70). Plaintiffs’ make no argument in support except to reference their
contemporaneously filed Notice of Appeal (ECF No. 69) in which they say the basis for their
Motion has been “fully briefed.”
Plaintiffs’ Notice of Appeal is ambiguous as to which court they believed they are
appealing. In the caption they speak of appealing to “this Court.” Id. at PageID 759. No such
appeal is allowed by law.

This case has been referred to the undersigned United States

Magistrate Judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) with the unanimous consent of the parties. Federal
law does not provide for any appeal from a Magistrate Judge’s order in such a case to any other
judge of the Court on which that Magistrate Judge serves.
1

Instead of appealing to “this Court,” Plaintiffs may be intending to appeal to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit although they have made no reference to that court
in their Motion, nor have they either paid the filing fee to appeal to that court or sought leave to
proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. While that court will have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §
1291 of any appeal from a final judgment of this Court, it has no such jurisdiction at present
because there has been no final appealable judgment in this case. The decisions from which the
Plaintiffs purport to appeal – the Decision and Order Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary
Judgment (ECF No. 64) and the notation order denying their Motion for Reconsideration (ECF
No. 66) are interlocutory orders. To put it simply, no judgment has been entered in the case and
thus there is nothing to appeal to the Sixth Circuit under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. If Plaintiffs doubt the
legal correctness of this statement, they are free to file a notice of appeal to the Sixth Circuit with
the Clerk of this Court.
The Motion to Stay is DENIED.

November 15, 2016.
s/ Michael R. Merz
United States Magistrate Judge

2