Monroe v. City of Milwaukee Tax Service et al

Filing 6

ORDER signed by Judge J P Stadtmueller on 1/6/2021: ADOPTING 5 Magistrate Judge William E Duffin's Report and Recommendation; DISMISSING CASE without prejudice; and DENYING as moot 2 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed Without Prepayment of the Filing Fee. (cc: all counsel, via mail to Richard L Monroe)(jm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
RICHARD L. MONROE,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF MILWAUKEE TAX SERVICE
and WISCONSIN UNEMPLOYMENT
DIVISION,

Case No. 20-CV-1325-JPS-JPS

ORDER

Defendants.
On August 28, 2020, Plaintiff filed a pro se complaint and a motion
for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, (Docket #1, #2), and his case was
assigned to Magistrate Judge William E. Duffin. Plaintiff also submitted a
signed magistrate judge jurisdiction consent form (“Consent Form”), but he
did not check a box indicating whether he actually consented or refused
magistrate judge jurisdiction. (See Docket #3). Pursuant to General Local
Rule 3(a)(1), parties must file the completed Consent Form within 21 days.
On September 2, 2020, the Clerk of Court sent Plaintiff a letter
informing him of this oversight and instructing him to check the
appropriate box on the Consent Form and resubmit his letter. (Docket #31). About a month later, Magistrate Judge Duffin ordered Plaintiff to return
the Consent Form within 21 days of the date of the order. (Docket #4 at 1–
2). Magistrate Judge Duffin also informed Plaintiff that if he did not comply,
he would recommend that Plaintiff’s action be dismissed for failure to
prosecute. (Id. at 2). To date, Plaintiff has not filed a completed magistrate
consent form with the Court.

Case 2:20-cv-01325-JPS Filed 01/06/21 Page 1 of 2 Document 6

On November 2, 2020, Magistrate Judge Duffin recommended that
this Court dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint and this action for Plaintiff’s failure
to prosecute, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 41(c). (Docket #5). Pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2),
and General Local Rule 72(c), Plaintiff must have filed any written
objections to that recommendation, or any part thereof, within fourteen
days of the date of service of the recommendation. Plaintiff has not filed
any such objection. The Court has considered Magistrate Judge Duffin’s
recommendation (Docket #5), and, having received no objection thereto,
will adopt it. The Court will also dismiss this action without prejudice.
Thus, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis (Docket #2) as moot.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge William E. Duffin’s report
and recommendation (Docket #5) be and the same is hereby ADOPTED;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action be and the same is
hereby DISMISSED without prejudice; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis (Docket #2) be and the same is hereby DENIED as
moot.
The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 6th day of January, 2021.
BY THE COURT:

____________________________________
J. P. Stadtmueller
U.S. District Judge

Page 2 of 2
Case 2:20-cv-01325-JPS Filed 01/06/21 Page 2 of 2 Document 6