Hamza v. Nebraska Department of Correctional Services et al

Filing 92

ORDER that Plaintiff's pending motions 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 and 90 are denied. Ordered by Judge Richard G. Kopf. (copy mailed to pro se party)(CJP)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA SHAHEED K. HAMZA, Plaintiff, v. NEBRASKA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, ROBERT HOUSTON, Director, DCS, Individual and Official Capacity, FRED BRITTEN, Warden at TSCI, Individual and Official Capacity, BRAIN GAGE, Deputy Warden, Individual and Official Capacity, and MICHELLE YANDA, Unit Administrator, Individual and Official Capacity, Defendants. This matter is before the court on six separate motions filed by Plaintiff. (Filing Nos. 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, and 90.) Summarized and condensed, Plaintiff requests copies, amendments to his Complaint, and the appointment of counsel. (Id.) This matter was dismissed and judgment was entered on November 4, 2008. (Filing Nos. 81 and 82.) Plaintiff did not appeal and the time in which to do so has passed. Accordingly, no additional relief is available to Plaintiff, and no further action will be taken by this court. Plaintiff's motions are therefore denied. If Plaintiff requires copies of court documents, he should contact the Clerk of the court to determine the proper method of requesting and paying for copies. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: Plaintiff's pending motions (filing nos. 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, and 90) are denied. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 4:06CV3001

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

April 5, 2010.

BY THE COURT: Richard G. Kopf United States District Judge

*This opinion may contain hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites. The U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on their Web sites. Likewise, the court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their Web sites. The court accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the court. 2