Hanson v. Aurora Health Care

Filing 7

ORDER signed by Judge Pamela Pepper on 10/9/2018 ADOPTING 6 Judge Joseph's REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS and DISMISSING CASE without prejudice. (cc: all counsel, via mail to Janet Hanson)(cb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

JANET L. HANSON,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 18-cv-457-pp

AURORA HEALTH CARE,
Defendant.

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION (DKT. NO. 6) AND DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT
PREJUDICE

On March 22, 2018, the plaintiff filed a complaint and motion for leave to
proceed without prepayment of the filing fee. Dkt. Nos. 1-2. The clerk’s office
assigned the case to Magistrate Judge Nancy Joseph and sent the plaintiff
consent forms for magistrate judge jurisdiction. On May 17, 2018, the clerk’s
office entered a docket entry marking that the letter containing consent forms
for the plaintiff were returned as undeliverable. Dkt. No. 4.
Two weeks later, on May 31, 2017, Judge Joseph issued an order
requiring the plaintiff to file an updated motion to proceed without prepayment
of the filing fee. Dkt. No. 5. Judge Joseph noted that the plaintiff’s motion
indicated that she was currently going through a divorce, but she had not
stated whether or not she was currently legally married and, if so, what her
spouse’s total monthly wages or salary were. Id. at 2. Because of the motion’s
missing information, Judge Joseph stated that she would give the plaintiff the
1

opportunity to file an amended motion that should include the missing
information. Id. Finally, Judge Joseph observed that the consent forms to
magistrate judge jurisdiction had come back as undeliverable. Id.
Judge Joseph concluded that “[s]hould [the plaintiff] fail to file an
updated motion for leave to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee, or
should [the plaintiff] fail to apprise the Clerk of Court of her updated address,
this action will be dismissed for failure to prosecute.” Id. She gave the plaintiff
until June 14, 2018 to do so.
On June 22, 2018, Judge Joseph issued a report and recommendation
noting that the plaintiff had not file an updated motion, as ordered. Dkt. No. 6.
Accordingly, Judge Joseph denied the plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed
without prepayment of the filing fee. Id. Judge Joseph then recommended the
court deny the plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice, because the plaintiff’s
complaint stated that she was awaiting documentation from the EEOC and had
not exhausted her administrative remedies. Id. (citing Dkt. No. 1 at 3). Because
Judge Joseph cannot enter a final order on the plaintiff’s claim in light of
Coleman v. Labor and Industry Review Commission, 860 F.3d 461 (7th Cir.
2017), the clerk’s office referred the case to this court.
Per the end of Judge Joseph’s order as well as General L.R. 72(c) of the
Eastern District of Wisconsin and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), the
plaintiff had fourteen days to make specific written objections to the report and
recommendation. The plaintiff did not do so. Without objection and upon the
court’s review, this court also concludes that the plaintiff’s case should be
2

dismissed, without prejudice, because the plaintiff is currently exhausting her
administrative remedies.
The court ADOPTS Judge Joseph’s report and recommendation in its
entirety. Dkt. No. 6.
The court ORDERS that this case is DISMISSED, without prejudice.
Dated in Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 9th day of October, 2018.
BY THE COURT:
_____________________________________
HON. PAMELA PEPPER
United States District Judge

3