Hillard v. Fairbury, City of, et al

Filing 99

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 98 Plaintiff's Motion to Amend regarding Memorandum and Order 96 . The court has carefully reviewed the record and finds no good cause to reconsider its previous Memorandum and Order. Ordered by Judge Laurie Smith Camp. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(JAB)

Hillard v. Fairbury, City of, et al

Doc. 99

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA ROBERT S. HILLARD, Plaintiff, v. FAIRBURY, CITY OF, FAIRBURY POLICE DEPARTMENT, RICK CARMICHAEL, All to be sued in their individual and official capacities, BRETT WENTZ, All to be sued in their individual and official capacities, BROOKS BRYAN, All to be sued in their individual and official capacities, JEFFERSON, COUNTY OF, JEFFERSON COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT., NELS SORENSON, All to be sued in their individual and official capacities, BRYAN SPITZNOGLE, All to be sued in their individual and official capacities, and MATT SCHULTZ, All to be sued in their individual and official capacities, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 4:08CV3031

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff's Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment. (Filing No. 98.) In this Motion, Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the court's July 23, 2010, Memorandum and Order that dismissed Plaintiff's Complaint. (Filing No. 96.) The court has carefully reviewed the record and finds no good cause to reconsider its previous Memorandum and Order.

Dockets.Justia.com

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: Petitioner's Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment (Filing No. 98) is denied. DATED this 24th day of August, 2010. BY THE COURT:

s/Laurie Smith Camp 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