UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

MYRON WEBSTER, Case No. 24-12035 Plaintiff, Honorable Jonathan J.C. Grey Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford v.

CONSUMER CREDIT UNION, et al., Defendants.

ORDER ADJOURNING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE

This Court entered a notice to appear for a settlement conference scheduled for July 10, 2025. ECF No. 23. The notice required that the parties exchange statements with each other two weeks before the settlement conference, and then meet and confer to exchange good faith and realistic offers to settle. Id. The parties were also ordered to submit to the Court a copy of the settlement statements they had exchanged along with an ex-parte addendum one week before the conference. Id. Defendant Arbor Professonal Solutions’ settlement statement indicates that it forwarded an offer to plaintiff, but that plaintiff made no counteroffer. Defendant Consumer Credit Union’s settlement statement describes earlier settlement discussions but none within two weeks of the settlement conference. And plaintiff submitted no settlement conference statement to the Court. Because of these violations of the settlement conference notice,

the Court ADJOURNS the settlement conference until August 13, 2025, at 10:30 a.m. by Zoom. The Court understands that plaintiff is pro se and thus is held to less

stringent standards, but the leniency granted is not boundless. Martin v. Overton,

(6th Cir. 2004). Plaintiff is required to abide by court orders. But the Court will ease the requirements for plaintiff. By August 6, 2025, plaintiff must send to counsel and the Court (at

[email protected]) a settlement statement with his opening offers to settle the case, and describing the legal and factual support for that settlement position.

IT IS ORDERED. s/Elizabeth A. Stafford ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD Dated: July 9, 2025 United States Magistrate Judge

NOTICE TO PARTIES ABOUT OBJECTIONS

Within 14 days of being served with this order, any party may file objections with the assigned district judge. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). The district judge may sustain an objection only if the order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

. “When an objection is filed to a magistrate judge’s ruling on a non-dispositive motion, the ruling

remains in full force and effect unless and until it is stayed by the magistrate judge or a district judge.” E.D. Mich. LR 72.2. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that this document was served on counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s ECF System to their email or First Class U.S., mail addresses disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on July 9, 2025.

s/Davon Allen DAVON ALLEN Case Manager