Wilson v. Legum Norman Midwest

Filing 14

MEMORANDUM Order: Thomas Wilson ("Wilson") has brought an employment discrimination action against his ex-employer Legum Norman Midwest ("Legum Norman"), charging that he had been the victim of discrimination on the base of his c olor and race. With Wilson having paid the $400 filing fee up front, his accompanying In Forma Pauperis Application ("Application") was tendered solely in support of his Motion for Attorney Representation ("Motion") -- both o f those forms, like Wilson's Complaint of Employment Discrimination, were completed on forms made available by the Clerk's Office for use by pro se plaintiffs.This Court has twice directed Wilson's attention to the deficiencies in his effort to obtain representation by pro bono counsel. Those brief memorandum orders of March 2 and March 25 have brought no response, and accordingly the Motion [Dkt. 4] is denied without prejudice. This action has previously been set for a May 29 status hearing date, which will remain in effect. Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 5/26/2015:Mailed notice(clw, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
THOMAS WILSON,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
LEGUM NORMAN MIDWEST
33 West Ontario Street
Chicago, IL 60610,
Defendant.

Case No. 15 C 1638

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Thomas Wilson ("Wilson") has brought an employment discrimination action against his
ex-employer Legum Norman Midwest ("Legum Norman"), charging that he had been the victim
of discrimination on the base of his color and race. With Wilson having paid the $400 filing fee
up front, his accompanying In Forma Pauperis Application ("Application") was tendered solely
in support of his Motion for Attorney Representation ("Motion") -- both of those forms, like
Wilson's Complaint of Employment Discrimination, were completed on forms made available by
the Clerk's Office for use by pro se plaintiffs.
This Court has twice directed Wilson's attention to the deficiencies in his effort to obtain
representation by pro bono counsel. Those brief memorandum orders of March 2 and March 25
have brought no response, and accordingly the Motion [Dkt. 4] is denied without prejudice. This
action has previously been set for a May 29 status hearing date, which will remain in effect.

__________________________________________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge
Date: May 26, 2015