Barta v. Yeomans et al

Filing 39

NOTICE - The Court is in receipt of the plaintiff's "Response to Judgement [sic]" (filing 38 ). Because the plaintiff's "response" is not recognized by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it will not be acted upon by the Court. Ordered by Judge John M. Gerrard. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (KLF)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
DALE BARTA,
Plaintiff,

8:16-CV-242

vs.
NOTICE
TAMI YEOMANS, et al.,
Defendants.
The Court is in receipt of the plaintiff's "Response to Judgement [sic]"
(filing 38). Because the plaintiff's "response" is not recognized by the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, it will not be acted upon by the Court.
The plaintiff's filing is not, for instance, a motion to alter or amend the
judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e): it does not assert manifest errors
of law or fact or present newly discovered evidence, see United States v.
Metro. St. Louis Sewer Dist., 440 F.3d 930, 934 (8th Cir. 2006), nor was it
filed within 28 days of the judgment. Nor does it assert grounds for relief
cognizable under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). See Freeman v. Wyeth, 764 F.3d 806,
809 (8th Cir. 2014). And it neither purports to be a notice of appeal, nor was
it filed within 30 days of the judgment. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A).1
In sum, this case is closed, and the plaintiff's "response" does not
require action by the Court.
Dated this 8th day of March, 2017.
BY THE COURT:

John M. Gerrard
United States District Judge
For the sake of completeness, the Court notes that the substance of the plaintiff's
"response" is also meritless. His claim that the defendants could not respond to his
"affidavit of fact" through counsel is wrong because "[u]nless a rule or statute specifically
states otherwise, a pleading need not be verified or accompanied by an affidavit." Fed. R.
Civ. P. 11(a). And the plaintiff's citation to 15 U.S.C. § 15(b), which provides jurisdiction in
antitrust cases, does not avail him because this is not an antitrust case.
1