Denton v. Pastor et al
ORDER denying the 129 Motion to set Settlement Scheduling Order for both parties to meet. The parties are instructed to refrain form filing any settlement offers with the Court. Signed by Magistrate Judge David W. Christel.**2 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(Michael Denton, Prisoner ID: 898610)(CMG)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
CASE NO. 3:16-CV-05314-RJB-DWC
PASTOR, et al.,
The District Court has referred this action, filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983, to United
States Magistrate Judge David W. Christel. Plaintiff Michael Denton has filed a “Motion to Set
Settlement Scheduling Order for Both Parties to Meet.” Dkt. 129. 1 Plaintiff requests the Court
schedule a meeting for the parties to engage in settlement discussions. Id. Plaintiff does not
request the Court refer this matter to a settlement judge. See id. Defendants filed a Response
stating they do not wish for the Court to be involved in setting a meeting for the parties to
Also pending in this action are Plaintiff’s and Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment, which will be
24 addressed by the Court in a separately filed Report and Recommendation.
ORDER - 1
1 discuss settlement options. Dkt. 132. Further, Defendants’ counsel states the parties can negotiate
2 any settlement offers through written communication. Id.
After review of the relevant record, the Court finds Plaintiff has not shown a face-to-face
4 meeting is necessary. If the parties wish to engage in settlement negotiations, written settlement
5 offers can be mailed between Plaintiff and Defendants’ counsel. Moreover, the Court should not
6 be involved in settlement negotiations. Plaintiff’s Motion (Dkt. 129) is denied. The parties are
7 instructed to refrain from filing any settlement offers with the Court.
Dated this 23rd day of October, 2017.
David W. Christel
United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER - 2
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?