Jones v. International Association of Bridge Structural Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers et al

Filing 157

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Patricia J Gorence on 5/15/2012. The plaintiffs motion for a continuance of the scheduling conference be and hereby is denied. (Docket #155). The telephone scheduling conference will take place as scheduled on Thursday May 17, 2012, at 3:00 p.m. The court will initiate the call. (cc: all counsel, to plaintiff via USPS) (mlm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
RICKY JONES,
Plaintiff,
v.
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
BRIDGE STRUCTURAL ORNAMENTAL
AND REINFORCING IRON WORKERS et al.,

Case No. 10-C-560

Defendants.

ORDER

The plaintiff, Ricky Jones, filed a motion for continuance of the scheduling
conference and an “objection to my non-participation in talks.”

(Docket #155).

Defendants International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental, and Reinforcing
Ironworkers, AFL-CIO, Ironworkers District Council of North Central States, Ironworkers
Local #8, including its officers and Executive Board, Ironworkers Local 8 Health and
Welfare Fund Board of Trustees, and J.P. Cullen Company filed their Rule 26(f) report. In
their report, the defendants indicated that the plaintiff declined to participate in the
process of compiling a joint Rule 26(f) report. The defendants further indicated that the
plaintiff was offered the opportunity to confer either by telephone or by making written
contributions to the report. Despite the defendants’ assertion to the contrary, the plaintiff
indicates that he was not allowed the opportunity to confer in the Rule 26(f) report.

1

Notwithstanding the plaintiff’s assertion that he was not allowed to confer in the
Rule 26(f) report, his motion for a continuance of the scheduling conference will be
denied. The plaintiff’s motion is confusing and the court is unclear as to what the plaintiff
hopes to accomplish with a continuance of the scheduling conference. The plaintiff also
asks that the court order Local 8 to strictly follow reinstatement procedures. The court
can not order Local 8 to follow reinstatement procedures based on the plaintiff’s motion
for a continuance.
In addition to his motion for a continuance, the plaintiff filed a purported affidavit
addressed to Chief Judge Charles N. Clevert, Jr. He indicates that he makes the affidavit
in support of resolution of the case. However, it is unclear from the plaintiff’s submissions
exactly what he is attempting to accomplish by filing the affidavit. He does not ask for
anything by way of his submission.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiff’s motion for a continuance
of the scheduling conference be and hereby is denied. (Docket #155). The telephone
scheduling conference will take place as scheduled on Thursday May 17, 2012, at 3:00
p.m. The court will initiate the call.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 15th day of May, 2012.
BY THE COURT:
s/Patricia J. Gorence
PATRICIA J. GORENCE
United States Magistrate Judge

2