United States District Court, D. Columbia
IVY BROWN, Plaintiff, Pro se, Wilmington, DE.
JOHN DALTON, Defendant: Scott Sutherland Harris, LEAD
ATTORNEY, U.S. SUPREME COURT, Washington, DC; William Mark
Nebeker, LEAD ATTORNEY, U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Civil
Division, Washington, DC; Mary Lou Leary, U.S. ATTORNEY'S
OFFICE, Washington, DC.
KOLLAR-KOTELLY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
before the Court is pro se Plaintiff's 
Motion to Amend Settlement Agreement. Upon consideration of
the pleadings, the relevant legal authorities, and
the record as a whole, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's 
Motion to Amend Settlement Agreement.
1997, Plaintiff, Victor I. Brown filed the above-entitled
action against Defendant, the Secretary of the Navy, alleging
employment discrimination with regard to his non-selection
for a position advertised by the Department of the Navy in
1989. Pl.'s Mot. at 8. In April 1998, Plaintiff and
Defendant agreed to settle the above-entitled action.
See Stipulation for Compromise Settlement, ECF No.
; Pl.'s Mot, ECF No. , at Appendix 1 (the "
Settlement Agreement" ). Under the Settlement Agreement,
Defendant agreed to promote Plaintiff to the level of GS-12
as of February 24, 1991, and pay $3,765.00 to Plaintiff as
back pay. See id. ¶ 2. In return, Plaintiff
accepted that the promotion and payment of back pay
constituted the " full settlement and satisfaction of
any and all claims, demands, and causes of action of
whatsoever kind and nature based upon his former employment
with the Department of the Navy, including but not limited to
the claims asserted in this cause of action."
Id. ¶ 3. Judge Ricardo M. Urbina approved the
Settlement Agreement in a Stipulated Order dated April 30,
1998. See Stipulation for Compromise Settlement, ECF
No. ; Pl.'s Mot, ECF No. , at Appendix 1.
8, 2015, Plaintiff filed the present  Motion to Amend
Settlement Agreement under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b).
Plaintiff's motion is the first activity in this case
since Judge Urbina approved the Settlement Agreement in April
27, 2015, the case was reassigned to the undersigned Judge
from Judge Ricardo M. Urbina. On October 13, 2015, the Court
entered an Order, noting that it had appeared that Court no
longer had correct contact information for the attorneys who
were to be noticed on behalf of Defendant. See Order
(Oct. 13, 2015), ECF No. , at 1. The Court ordered that
the Clerk of the Court mail a copy of Plaintiff's motion
to the Chief of the Civil Division in the U.S. Attorney's
Office for the District of Columbia. Id. at 2. The
Court further ordered that Defendant file a response to
Plaintiff's motion within 30 days, on or before, November
12, 2015. Id.
accordance with the Court's order, Defendant filed its
opposition on November 12, 2015. See Def.'s Mem.
in Opp'n to Pl.'s Motion, ECF No. . Plaintiff
filed his reply on November 23, 2015. See Pl.'s
Repl, ECF No. . Plaintiff's motion is now ripe for
requests relief under Rule 60(b)(3), (5), and (6). These
provisions provide in relevant part as follows:
On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or
its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or