Prokop v. Nebraska Accountability and Disclosure Commission et al

Filing 55

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Plaintiff is sanctioned for violating Rule 11 and ordered to pay the McClurgs $2,439.90 for their reasonable attorney's fees in defending this action. Plaintiff's Motion for Bill of Exceptions (filing no. 51 ) is denied. The Clerk of the court will transmit the record on appeal in accordance with all relevant rules and procedures. The Clerk of the court shall provide the Court of Appeals a copy of this Memorandum and Order. A separate judgment will be entered in accordance with this Memorandum and Order and the court's March 7, 2011, Memorandum and Order. Ordered by Chief Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (Copy mailed/e-mailed to pro se party; Copy sent electronically to the Court of Appeals)(GJG)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
ROBERT J. PROKOP,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
NEBRASKA ACCOUNTABILITY
)
AND DISCLOSURE COMMISSION, et )
al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)

4:10CV3176

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on its own motion. Also pending is Plaintiff’s Motion
for Bill of Exceptions. (Filing No. 51.) On March 7, 2011, the court dismissed this matter
against Defendants and granted James and Lori McClurg’s Motion for Attorney’s fees with
respect to liability. (Filing No. 47.) In doing so, the court provided James and Lori McClurg
(the “McClurgs”) with 21 days to file an affidavit detailing the attorney’s fees they incurred
in defending this action. (Id. at CM/ECF p. 6.)
On March 28, 2011, the McClurgs filed an Index in Support of the court’s March 7,
2011, Memorandum and Order. (Filing No. 49.) In this Index, counsel for the McClurgs
stated that he billed the McClurgs fees in the amount of $2,439.90 for defending this action.
(Id. at CM/ECF pp. 4-5.) Plaintiff has not responded to the McClurgs’ Index. (See Docket
Sheet.) After a careful review, the court finds that the McClurgs’ Index complies with the
court’s March 7, 2011, Memorandum and Order. Plaintiff is sanctioned and ordered to pay
the McClurgs $2,439.90 for their reasonable attorney’s fees in defending this action.
Separately, the court notes that Plaintiff filed a Notification of Appeal in this matter.
(Filing Nos. 50 and 53.) In addressing this Notice of Appeal, the Eighth Circuit Court of
Appeals stated:
A notice of appeal is ineffective until the entry of the order disposing of the
last outstanding motion. A new notice of appeal is not required under Federal
Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 4(a)4 to perfect the appeal after disposition
of the last outstanding motion unless the party seeks review of the ruling on

the attorney’s fees motion. In such a case, an amended notice of appeal must
be filed within the prescribed time. No additional fees shall be required for
such filing.
(Filing No. 54.) The court reminds Plaintiff that if he seeks appellate review of this
Memorandum and Order, he must file an amended notice of appeal within the prescribed
time.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1.

Plaintiff is sanctioned for violating Rule 11 and ordered to pay the McClurgs

$2,439.90 for their reasonable attorney’s fees in defending this action.
2.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Bill of Exceptions (filing no. 51) is denied. The Clerk

of the court will transmit the record on appeal in accordance with all relevant rules and
procedures.
3.

The Clerk of the court shall provide the Court of Appeals a copy of this

Memorandum and Order.
4.

A separate judgment will be entered in accordance with this Memorandum and

Order and the court’s March 7, 2011, Memorandum and Order.
DATED this 3 rd day of May, 2011.
BY THE COURT:

s/ Joseph F. Bataillon
Chief 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-