after making the offer.’ ” Marek, 473 U.S. at 5, 105 S.Ct. 3012 (emphasis in original). Thus, Rule 68 encourages settlement by “forcing a plaintiff to weigh the risk of incurring post-offer costs and fees he may not be able to recover even if successful on his claims.” Herrington, 12 F.3d at 907. The term “costs” in Rule 68 “was intended to refer to all costs properly awardable under the relevant substantive statute or other authority. In other words, all costs properly awardable in an action are to be considered within the scope of Rule 68 ‘costs.’ ” Marek, 473 U.S. at 9, 105 S.Ct. 3012. “Since Congress expressly included attorney’s fees as ‘costs’ available to a plaintiff in a § 1983 suit, such fees are subject to the cost-shifting provision of Rule 68.” Id. at 9-11, 105 S.Ct. 3012 (<HOLDING>); see also Family PAC v. Ferguson, 745 F.3d
holding an unaccepted rule 68 offer does not moot a claim holding that while rule 68 does not explicitly require that an offer of settlement under that rule be made in writing its requirement that the offer be served upon the adverse party implies as much holding that district court erred in awarding attorneys fees in civil rights action where plaintiff only recovered 1 in nominal damages holding that plaintiffs were not entitled to 139692 in postoffer legal fees where they recovered 8000 less than defendants rule 68 offer and noting that this result was consistent with the policies and objectives of  1988  to encourage  plaintiffs to bring meritorious civil rights suits  holding that the plaintiffs were not prevailing parties entitled to attorneys fees for successfully securing a remand of the attorneys fees issue because the ruling was unrelated to the merits of the plaintiffs claim and the issue was not significant nor a benefit the plaintiffs sought in bringing their action