Reported / Citable
Background
Plaintiff Brusha Moore filed three motions concerning sanctions and alleged fraud on the court: a Motion for Sanctions and Notice of Fraud Upon the Court, a Renewed Motion for Terminating Sanctions and Judicial Notice of Fraud upon the Court, and an Amended Emergency Motion for Sanctions and Request for Protective Order.
A magistrate judge recommended denying the first two motions as moot and denying the amended emergency motion. Moore timely objected and requested a stay. My Possibilities Foundation responded, and Moore filed two replies.
The Court’s Holding
After conducting a de novo review of Moore’s objections, the defendant’s response, and Moore’s replies, the district court concluded that the magistrate judge’s findings were correct and adopted the report and recommendation as the court’s findings.
The court denied as moot Moore’s Motion for Sanctions and Notice of Fraud Upon the Court (Dkt. 30) and Renewed Motion for Terminating Sanctions and Judicial Notice of Fraud upon the Court (Dkt. 41). Separately, it denied her Amended Emergency Motion for Sanctions and Request for Protective Order (Dkt. 63), without designating that motion as moot.
Key Takeaways
- The district court reviewed Moore’s objections de novo and adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation.
- Only the motions at Dkt. 30 and Dkt. 41 were denied as moot.
- The amended emergency sanctions and protective-order motion at Dkt. 63 was denied without a stated mootness designation.
Why It Matters
The order illustrates the importance of distinguishing among separate rulings on related motions. Although all three motions were denied, the court expressly labeled only the first two denials as moot.