Brown v. Sidhu et al

Filing 55

ORDER denying plaintiff Mary Ann Brown's Motion to Reopen Case (Filing No. 52 ). Ordered by Chief Judge Robert F. Rossiter, Jr. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (JSF)

Download PDF
8:20-cv-00342-RFR-SMB Doc # 55 Filed: 01/07/22 Page 1 of 2 - Page ID # 237 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA MARY ANN BROWN, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 8:20CV342 ORDER Defendant. This matter is before the Court on pro se plaintiff Mary Ann Brown’s (“Brown”) motion to “reopen” her case (Filing No. 52). Without evidence, Brown accuses the Assistant United States Attorney assigned to her case of “threatening” a purported witness “at Dodge County not to help Mary Brown.” Brown states she has information from an “RN at the Lincoln VA Medical Center” who allegedly has information about the medication Brown took. As “proof,” Brown has affixed to her motion what appears to be a post-it note dated December 15, 2021, that indicates the author “heard rumors at the old building” that Brown’s “medication was contaminated.” The signature on the note is illegible. Presuming Brown has filed her motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), the government opposes Brown’s motion on multiple procedural grounds (Filing No. 53). The government also understandably bristles at Brown’s “spurious allegations” of misconduct. Upon due consideration, the Court finds Brown has not stated a colorable basis to “reopen” her case. As such, her motion is denied. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this 7th day of January 2022. 8:20-cv-00342-RFR-SMB Doc # 55 Filed: 01/07/22 Page 2 of 2 - Page ID # 238 BY THE COURT: Robert F. Rossiter, Jr. Chief United States District Judge 2

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?