Monroe v. Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development

Filing 7

ORDER ADOPTING 6 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Chief Judge William C Griesbach on 3/6/18. Plaintiff's 2 Motion to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED as MOOT. This case is DISMISSED for lack of diligence pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and Civil Local Rule 41(c). The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment. (cc: all counsel)(Griesbach, William)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
RICHARD L. MONROE,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 17-C-1625

WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF
WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT,
Defendant.

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DISMISSING CASE

Plaintiff Richard L. Monroe, who is proceeding without the assistance of counsel, filed this
action on November 22, 2017. This matter was randomly assigned to Magistrate Judge David E.
Jones. On November 29, 2017, the court ordered Monroe to either voluntarily dismiss his case or
to submit proof that he had exhausted his administrative remedies and file an amended complaint
by December 20, 2017. Monroe took no action. On December 29, 2017, the court issued a showcause order and directed Monroe to explain his failure to comply with court order by January 29,
2018. Monroe was warned that a failure to respond could result in the dismissal of his complaint
for lack of diligence pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and Civil Local Rule 41(c).
Monroe did not respond.
On February 12, 2018, Magistrate Judge Jones issued a Report and Recommendation
recommending that this matter be dismissed for lack of diligence.1 The time to respond has lapsed

1

Because not all parties have filed a consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction, Magistrate
Judge Jones could not dismiss the case. See Coleman v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm’n, 860 F.3d
461 (7th Cir. 2017).

and no objection has been received. Because no objection was made, I review Magistrate Judge
Jones’ report for clear error. Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999). Upon
review, I find no clear error in either the report or the recommendation.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Jones’ Report
and Recommendation (ECF No. 6) and this case shall be DISMISSED for lack of diligence
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and Civil Local Rule 41(c).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF
No. 2) is DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court enter judgment accordingly.
I FURTHER CERTIFY that any appeal from this matter would not be taken in good faith
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) unless the plaintiff offers bonafide arguments supporting his
appeal.
Dated this 6th

day of March, 2018.
s/ William C. Griesbach
William C. Griesbach, Chief Judge
United States District Court

2

This order and the judgment to follow are final. The plaintiff may appeal this court’s decision to the
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit by filing in this court a notice of appeal within 30 days of the
entry of judgment. See Fed. R. App. P. 3, 4. This court may extend this deadline if a party timely
requests an extension and shows good cause or excusable neglect for not being able to meet the 30-day
deadline. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(A). If the plaintiff appeals, he will be liable for the $505.00
appellate filing fee regardless of the appeal’s outcome. If the plaintiff seeks leave to proceed in forma
pauperis on appeal, he must file a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis with this court. See Fed.
R. App. P. 24(a)(1). Plaintiff may be assessed another “strike” by the Court of Appeals if his appeal is
found to be non-meritorious. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). If the plaintiff accumulates three strikes, he will
not be able to file an action in federal court (except as a petition for habeas corpus relief) without
prepaying the filing fee unless he demonstrates that he is in imminent danger of serous physical injury.
Id.
Under certain circumstances, a party may ask this court to alter or amend its judgment under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 59(e) or ask for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b).
Any motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) must be filed within 28 days of the entry of
judgment. Any motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) must be filed within a reasonable
time, generally no more than one year after the entry of judgment. The court cannot extend these
deadlines. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(2).
A party is expected to closely review all applicable rules and determine, what, if any, further action is
appropriate in a case.

3