Griffin v. City of Chicago et al

Filing 7

ORDER signed by Judge J.P. Stadtmueller on 7/28/2017: ADOPTING 6 Magistrate Judge David E. Jones' Report and Recommendations; DENYING 2 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed Without Prepayment of Filing Fee; and DISMISSING action without prejudice. (cc: all counsel, via mail to Willie R. Griffin)(jm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
WILLIE R. GRIFFIN,
Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF CHICAGO, CITY OF LAS
VEGAS, CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS,
CITY OF OMAHA, and CITY OF
JACKSON,

Case No. 17-CV-701-JPS

ORDER

Defendants.

On May 18, 2017, the plaintiff, Willie R. Griffin, filed a pro se complaint
and a petition to proceed in forma pauperis. (Docket #1 and #2). The case was
initially assigned to Magistrate Judge David E. Jones, but because not all
parties have had the opportunity to consent to magistrate jurisdiction, see 28
U.S.C. § 636(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 73(b), the case was reassigned to this Court
for screening.
Notwithstanding the payment of any filing fee, the Court must dismiss
a complaint filed in forma pauperis if it raises claims that are “frivolous or
malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that
seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Magistrate Jones reviewed and analyzed both the
plaintiff’s complaint and his motion to proceed in forma pauperis, and
determined the plaintiff’s complaint failed to state a claim on which relief
could be granted. Thereafter, Magistrate Jones filed a Report and
Recommendation with this Court, recommending that: (1) the plaintiff’s

motion for leave to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee be denied;
(2) the case be dismissed. (Docket #6).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C), Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2),
and E.D. Wis. Gen. L.R. 72(c), any written objections to that recommendation,
or any part thereof, were to be filed within fourteen days of the date of
service of the recommendation.
To date, no party has filed such an objection.1
The Court has considered Magistrate Jones’ recommendation and,
having received no objection thereto, will adopt it.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge David E. Jones’ report and
recommendation (Docket #6) be and the same is hereby ADOPTED;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff’s motion for leave to
proceed without prepayment of the filing fee (Docket #2) be and the same is
hereby DENIED; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action be and the same is hereby
DISMISSED without prejudice.
The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

The docket shows that the copy of the recommendation sent to the plaintiff
was returned to the Court undeliverable and no forwarding address has been
provided. It is the plaintiff’s responsibility to provide and maintain with the Court a
current address. E.D. Wis. Gen. L.R. 4. The plaintiff’s failure to object to the
magistrate judge’s recommendation will not be excused on the grounds that he did
not provide the Court with a current address and therefore did not receive a copy of
the recommendation.
1

Page 2 of 3

Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 28th day of July, 2017.
BY THE COURT:

J.P. Stadtmueller
U.S. District Judge

Page 3 of 3