Jones v. Meisner et al

Filing 74

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge William E Duffin on 5/9/2022 GRANTING 53 Defendant Christopher Tuveson's Motion for Summary Judgment on the merits; and GRANTING 64 State defendants Motion for Summary Judgment on the merits. This case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Judgment to be entered. (cc: all counsel and mailed to pro se Plaintiff)(lz)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN TYARRL JONES, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 20-CV-1074 ANGELA THOMPSON, et al., Defendants. ORDER On February 11, 2022, defendant Christopher Tuveson filed a motion for summary judgment on the merits. (ECF No. 53.) On February 16, 2022, the court issued a notice and order informing plaintiff Tyarrl Jones that he had until March 14, 2022, to file a response to Tuveson’s summary judgment motion. (ECF No. 59.) The court cautioned Jones that, if by that date he did not respond to the motion or file a letter explaining why he was unable to do so, the court would accept all facts asserted by Tuveson as undisputed. On March 22, 2022, defendants Cindy Barter, William Borgen, Sheri Klenke, Kira Labby, and Angela Thompson (State Defendants) filed a motion for summary judgment on the merits. (ECF No. 64.) That same day, the court issued a notice and order informing Jones that he had until April 21, 2022, to file a response to the State Defendants’ motion. (ECF No. 72.) The court again cautioned Jones that, if by Case 2:20-cv-01074-WED Filed 05/09/22 Page 1 of 3 Document 74 that date he did not respond or file a letter explaining why he was unable to do so, the court would accept all facts asserted by the State Defendants as undisputed. Both deadlines have passed and Jones has not filed a response to either motion. As such, the court will construe the motions as unopposed. The court has reviewed the defendants’ motions, briefs in support, and the undisputed facts, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(2), and concludes that both the State Defendants and Tuveson are entitled to summary judgment on the merits. Accordingly, the defendants’ motions are granted, and the claims are dismissed. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Tuveson’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 53) and the State Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 64) are GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED with prejudice. The Clerk of Court will enter judgment accordingly. This order and the judgment to follow are final. A dissatisfied party 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 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 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 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5)(A). 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 2 Case 2:20-cv-01074-WED Filed 05/09/22 Page 2 of 3 Document 74 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. The court cannot extend this deadline. See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(2). 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 the judgment. The court cannot extend this deadline. See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(2). A party is expected to closely review all applicable rules and determine what, if any, further action is appropriate. Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 9th day of May, 2022. BY THE COURT WILLIAM E. DUFFIN United States Magistrate Judge 3 Case 2:20-cv-01074-WED Filed 05/09/22 Page 3 of 3 Document 74

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?