Drevaleva v. United States of America

Opinion

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA TATYANA EVGENIEVNA DREVALEVA, Plaintiff, No. C 19-01454 WHA v. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THE RESPONSE BY COURT OFFICE OF RESOLUTION MANAGEMENT TO PLAINTIFF’S OF THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS “REQUEST FOR AFFAIRS, ROBERT WILKIE, United States CLARIFICATION” Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Defendants. / The Court received a “Request for Clarification” from pro se plaintiff Tatyana Evgenievna Drevaleva. Please be advised this is an improper communication. Plaintiff complains that she cannot access Burroughs v. MSPB, 73 F. App’x 415, 417 (Fed. Cir. 2003). She should know that this case is available on WestLaw, which is accessible to the public for free at any public law library. Still, to accommodate plaintiff, it is appended as an exhibit hereto. Next, she complains about the following statement in the order herein dated November 6, 2019: “In May 2018, without disclosing her 2017 VAMC termination, plaintiff applied to work at the Minneapolis VAMC and received a tentative job offer. After conducting a background check, however, Minneapolis VAMC learned about the 2017 termination . . .” (Dkt. No. 45 at 1). On the record before this Court, the statement was justified. Plaintiff now gives additional information, which leads to the more correct statement: “In May 2018, without disclosing full details of the 2017 VAMC termination, plaintiff applied to work at the Minneapolis VAMC and received a tentative job offer. After conducting a background check, however, Minneapolis VAMC learned the full details of her 2017 termination and subsequently rescinded the offer.” 4} Even if this information had originally been before the Court, it would not have made a difference. This file has been closed and the Court will not entertain any more motions for this case. Dated: November 21, 2019. tA 7 Phere WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE E 12 A 16