Valentine v. Brown et al

Filing 98

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER that the Plaintiff's Notice of Appeal, ECF No. 96 , is construed as an objection to the Magistrate Judge's Order, ECF No. 95 , and the objection is denied. Member Cases: 8:16-cv-00131-LSC-MDN, 8:16-cv-00174-LSC-MDNOrdered by Chief Judge Laurie Smith Camp. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(LAC)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
VERONICA VALENTINE,
Plaintiff,

8:16CV131

vs.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
CHRIS BROWN, #1873; 8 UNKNOWN
JANE - JOHN DOE OMAHA POLICE
OFFICERS, THE CITY OF OMAHA, LISA
VILLWOK, AND #1764; and JENNIFER
HANSEN, #1585;
Defendants;
VERONICA VALENTINE,
Plaintiff,

8:16CV174

vs.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
CITY OF OMAHA, CHIEF OF OMAHA
POLICE SCHMADER, UNKNOWN JOHN
JANE DOE POLICE, LISA VILLWOK,
AND #1764; and JENNIFER HANSEN,
#1585;
Defendants.
This matter is before the Court on the Plaintiff’s Notice of Appeal, ECF No. 96,
and the Clerk’s IFP Memo, ECF No. 97.
Plaintiff Veronica Valentine’s Notice of Appeal is in effect an objection to the
Magistrate Judge’s Order, ECF No. 95, denying her Motion to Compel Discovery, ECF
No. 89. The Notice of Appeal is not an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Eighth Circuit, nor would it be a proper subject for such an appeal.
The Plaintiff’s Notice of Appeal, construed as an objection to the Magistrate
Judge’s Order denying her Motion to Compel discovery, will be denied. The Magistrate
Judge’s Order was neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(a).
IT IS ORDERED:

The Plaintiff’s Notice of Appeal, ECF No. 96, is construed as an objection to the
Magistrate Judge’s Order, ECF No. 95, and the objection is denied.
Dated this 8th day of August, 2017
BY THE COURT:
s/Laurie Smith Camp
Chief United States District Judge

2