Brown v. Department of Health & Human Services et al

Filing 59

ORDER - The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate as a pending motion Plaintiff's "Objection" (Filing No. 51 ) to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Filing No. 43 ) and re-docket it as a Brief in Opposition to Defendants ' Motion for Summary Judgment. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate as a pending motion Plaintiff's "Objection" (Filing No. 56 ) to Defendants' Motion to Strike (Filing No. 54 ) and re-docket it as a Brief in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Strike. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (KLF)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA MEE MEE BROWN, Plaintiff, v. SHERI DAWSON, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 8:16CV569 ORDER Plaintiff has filed “Objections” (Filing Nos. 51, 56) to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Filing No. 43) and to Defendants’ Motion to Strike (Filing No. 54). Nebraska Civil Rule 7.1(b)(1)(A) prohibits the filing of an “objection” to a motion. Rather, a party must file a “brief that concisely states the reasons for opposing the motion and cites to supporting authority.” Accordingly, the court will treat Plaintiff’s Objections as briefs in opposition to Defendants’ motions. IT IS ORDERED: 1. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate as a pending motion Plaintiff’s “Objection” (Filing No. 51) to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Filing No. 43) and re-docket it as a Brief in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. 2. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate as a pending motion Plaintiff’s “Objection” (Filing No. 56) to Defendants’ Motion to Strike (Filing No. 54) and re-docket it as a Brief in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Strike. DATED this 14th day of February, 2018. BY THE COURT: s/ Richard G. Kopf Senior United States District Judge

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?