Rodriquez, Jesus v. Fritz, Debbier et al

Filing 25

ORDER denying as moot defendants' 18 motion for summary judgment and dismissing this case with prejudice for plaintiff's failure to prosecute it. The clerk of court is directed to enter judgment for defendants and close this case. Signed by District Judge James D. Peterson on 5/8/2017. (jef),(ps) Modified on 5/8/2017 (jef).

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN JESUS RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff, v. ORDER DEBBIE FRITZ, KRISTEN ASHCHENBRENNER, and BEVERLY DILLION, 15-cv-255-jdp Defendants. On April 17, 2017, I reminded pro se plaintiff Jesus Rodriguez that he had not responded to defendants’ motion for summary judgment and that, as a result, he risked dismissal of his case. I specifically warned Rodriguez that I would dismiss his case with prejudice for his failure to prosecute it if he did not explain that he still intends to pursue his claims. I told him that if he intends to prosecute his case, he needed to (1) show cause why he was not able to submit a timely response to defendants’ motion for summary judgment; and (2) submit a response brief, proposed findings of fact, and supporting evidence opposing defendants’ motion. Dkt. 24. Rodriguez had until May 1, 2017, to respond to the April 17 order. He did not. Therefore, I will dismiss his case with prejudice for his failure to prosecute it. ORDER IT IS ORDERED that: 1. Defendants Debbie Fritz, Kristen Ashchenbrenner, and Beverly Dillion’s motion for summary judgment, Dkt. 18, is DENIED as moot. 2. Plaintiff Jesus Rodriguez’s case is DISMISSED with prejudice for his failure to prosecute it. 3. The clerk of court is directed to enter judgment for defendants and close this case. Entered May 8, 2017. BY THE COURT: /s/ ________________________________________ JAMES D. PETERSON District Judge 2

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?