Abraham v. Walgreen et al

District of Nebraska, ned-8:2005-cv-00246

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER regarding motion, filing {{45}}. Abraham's "Motion[s] to Seal Records" filed in Case Numbers 4:99CV3233, 8:01CV580, 8:05CV246, 8:05CV533, and 8:08CV151 are denied. The court directs the clerk's office to file this Memorandum and Order in each of the five cases listed in the caption above. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party)

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

8:05-cv-00246-RGK-PRSE Doc # 46 Filed: 12/10/12 Page 1 of 1 - Page ID # 141 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA) 4:99CV3233; 8:01CV580; 8:05CV246) 8:05CV533; 8:08CV151 IN RE GARY L. ABRAHAM)) MEMORANDUM) AND ORDER Gary Lamont Abraham ("Abraham") filed a "Motion to Seal Records" in the five cases listed in the caption of this Memorandum and Order. (See, e.g., Case No. 8:05CV533, Filing No. 28.) In this Motion, Abraham asks the court to "close" and "vacate[]" these "old settled cases." (Id.) The court has reviewed the record in each of the five cases. Contrary to Abraham's assertions, none of the cases are open. In addition, the court sees no reason to strike (or seal) any part of the record in any of the cases. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT: Abraham's "Motion[s] to Seal Records" filed in Case Numbers 4:99CV3233, 8:01CV580, 8:05CV246, 8:05CV533, and 8:08CV151 are denied. The court directs the clerk's office to file this Memorandum and Order in each of the five cases listed in the caption above. DATED this 10 th day of December, 2012. BY THE COURT: Richard G. Kopf Senior United States District Judge Acting in his capacity as Supervising Pro Se Judge *This opinion may contain hyperlinks to other documents or W eb sites. The U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on their W eb sites. Likewise, the court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their Web sites. The court accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the court.