Abraham v. Progressive Insurance (DO NOT FILE DOCUMENTS IN CASE PURSUANT TO FILING #26)

Filing 29

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER regarding motion, filing 28 . Abraham's "Motion[s] to Seal Records" filed in Case Numbers 4:99CV3233, 8:01CV580, 8:05CV246, 8:05CV533, and 8:08CV151 are denied. The court directs the clerk's office to file this Memorandum and Order in each of the five cases listed in the caption above. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(GJG)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

IN RE GARY L. ABRAHAM

)
)
)
)
)

4:99CV3233; 8:01CV580; 8:05CV246
8:05CV533; 8:08CV151
MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

Gary Lamont Abraham (“Abraham”) filed a “Motion to Seal Records” in the
five cases listed in the caption of this Memorandum and Order. (See, e.g., Case No.
8:05CV533, Filing No. 28.) In this Motion, Abraham asks the court to “close” and
“vacate[]” these “old settled cases.” (Id.)
The court has reviewed the record in each of the five cases. Contrary to
Abraham’s assertions, none of the cases are open. In addition, the court sees no
reason to strike (or seal) any part of the record in any of the cases.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT: Abraham’s “Motion[s] to Seal
Records” filed in Case Numbers 4:99CV3233, 8:01CV580, 8:05CV246, 8:05CV533,
and 8:08CV151 are denied.

The court directs the clerk’s office to file this

Memorandum and Order in each of the five cases listed in the caption above.
DATED this 10 th day of December, 2012.
BY THE COURT:
Richard G. Kopf
Senior United States District Judge
Acting in his capacity as
Supervising Pro Se Judge
*This opinion may contain hyperlinks to other documents or W eb 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 W eb 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.