Gresham v. Norfolk Southern, et al
Filing
178
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: On 8/28/2015, the 4CCA sent a 177 letter to the Clerk of this Court indicating that the 4CCA considered Document Nos. 173 or 174 to be "a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b) (for judgment), 52(b) (to amend or make additional findings), 59 (to alter or amend judgment or for new trial), or 60 (to vacate) filed within 28 days of entry of judgment." To the extent that plaintiff's filings (Document Nos. 173 or 174) are any of the foregoing, the motions are DENIED for the reasons expressed in the Memorandum Opinion and Order of 7/28/2015. Signed by Senior Judge David A. Faber on 9/3/2015. (cc: Plaintiff, Pro Se and counsel of record) (arb)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
BLUEFIELD
LATHRONEA P. GRESHAM,
Plaintiff,
v.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:92-01003
NORFOLK SOUTHERN CORPORATION
a.d.b.a Norfolk & Western
Railway Company, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
In 1992, plaintiff filed a lawsuit against defendants, her
employer, alleging discrimination on the basis of race and sex in
violation of both Title VII and the West Virginia Human Rights
Act.
On July 21, 1994, after a multi-day bench trial, the court
entered judgment in favor of defendants and ordered the case
removed from the court’s docket.
On September 8, 1995, the
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed
the district court’s judgment.
On April 2, 2015, plaintiff filed a motion to reopen this
case which she titled “Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion and Motion to
Re-open Legal Actions for Relief from Judgments Pursuant to FRCP
60(4), (6)(d)(3) - Fraud Upon the Court by Officers of the Court,
et al to Conceal Violations of Various Laws by Defendants
Including Those Defined in 18 U.S. Code Section 1961(1)(A)(B),
Etc.”
(Doc. No. 159).
Defendants filed a response to
plaintiff’s motion indicating their opposition to reopening the
case, as well as a motion to strike and for sanctions.
On July
28, 2015, the court denied plaintiff’s motion to reopen, finding
that she was not entitled to relief under either Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 60(b)(4) or 60(d)(3).
On August 3, 2015, plaintiff filed “Plaintiff’s Opposition
and Objection to Misrepresentations in Memorandum Opinion and
Order Dated 7/28/2015, Signed by David A. Faber, – Sr. U.S.
District Court Judge.”
(Doc. No. 173).
On August 7, 2015,
plaintiff filed a letter addressed to the undersigned and Chief
Justice Roberts the subject of which is “Consolidating and
Joining TCU, et al and NSC, et al CA #s 1004 and 1003 - Appeal
Nos. 1:94-8090 and 94-2149 S. Ct. Docket No. 94-9848 TCU, et al Rule 60(d)(3) Fraud on the Court Violations and 18 U.S.C. Section
1001, etc. Fourth and Tenth Circuits.”
(Doc. No. 174).
The
Clerk’s Office of this court docketed Doc. No. 174 as a Motion to
Vacate.
On August 28, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals
for the Fourth Circuit sent a letter to the Clerk of this Court
indicating that the Fourth Circuit considered one of the
aforementioned documents (Doc. No. 173 or 174) to be “a motion
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b) (for judgment), 52(b) (to amend or
make additional findings), 59 (to alter or amend judgment or for
new trial), or 60 (to vacate) filed within 28 days of entry of
judgment.”
(Doc. No. 177).
To the extent that plaintiff’s
filings are any of the foregoing, the motions are DENIED for the
2
reasons expressed in the Memorandum Opinion and Order of July 28,
2015.
The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Memorandum
Opinion and Order to counsel of record and to plaintiff, pro se.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 3rd day of September, 2015.
ENTER:
David A. Faber
Senior United States District Judge
3
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?