Filed: Dec. 02, 2015
Latest Update: Dec. 02, 2015
Summary: ORDER PHILIP A. BRIMMER , District Judge . This matter is before the Court on plaintiff's letter to the Court, filed on March 20, 2015, which the Court will construe as a motion to transfer venue [Docket No. 42]. On December 23, 2014, the Court overruled plaintiff's objections and accepted the magistrate judge's recommendation that defendant E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company's motion to dismiss [Docket No. 16] be granted and this case be dismissed in its entirety. Docket No. 39 at 5. In
Summary: ORDER PHILIP A. BRIMMER , District Judge . This matter is before the Court on plaintiff's letter to the Court, filed on March 20, 2015, which the Court will construe as a motion to transfer venue [Docket No. 42]. On December 23, 2014, the Court overruled plaintiff's objections and accepted the magistrate judge's recommendation that defendant E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company's motion to dismiss [Docket No. 16] be granted and this case be dismissed in its entirety. Docket No. 39 at 5. In t..
More
ORDER
PHILIP A. BRIMMER, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff's letter to the Court, filed on March 20, 2015, which the Court will construe as a motion to transfer venue [Docket No. 42].
On December 23, 2014, the Court overruled plaintiff's objections and accepted the magistrate judge's recommendation that defendant E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company's motion to dismiss [Docket No. 16] be granted and this case be dismissed in its entirety. Docket No. 39 at 5. In the same order, the Court denied defendant's motion to transfer venue to Texas [Docket No. 19] as moot. Id. On December 29, 2014, the Court entered final judgment, awarded defendant its costs, and dismissed the case. Docket No. 40. Plaintiff did not file a notice of appeal.1
In light of plaintiff's pro se status, the Court construes plaintiff's filings liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 & n.3 (10th Cir. 1991).
Plaintiff states that she is now living and working in Borger, Texas and argues that her case should be transferred to Texas. However, this case was closed more than eleven months ago. Thus, there is no active case that could be transferred.
For the foregoing reasons, it is
ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to transfer venue [Docket No. 42] is DENIED.
