Rounds-Rheaume, June v. Univ. of Wisc. State Laboratory of Hygiene et al

Filing 39

ORDER denying plaintiff's 36 Motion for Summary Judgment without prejudice. The clerk of court is directed to send plaintiff a copy of the court's pretrial conference order, Dkt. 25 . Signed by District Judge James D. Peterson on 1/17/2017. (jef),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

JUNE E. ROUNDS-RHEAUME,
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER
JOHN C. DOWLING, BRIAN D. VAUGHAN,
SANDRA K. PRISBE, CYNDA DEMONTIGNY, BARB
WOEHRL, and BOARD OF REGENTS OF
UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN SYSTEM,

16-cv-146-jdp

Defendants.
Pro se plaintiff June E. Rounds-Rheaume is proceeding on Title VII retaliation and
First Amendment retaliation claims. Rounds-Rheaume contends that after she quit her job,
defendants prevented her from finding other employment by refusing to give prospective
employers an accurate description of her position.
Rounds-Rheaume moves for summary judgment, Dkt. 36, but her submissions do not
comply with the court’s pretrial conference order. Dkt. 25. Most important, the pretrial
conference order requires her to include all materials facts in proposed findings of fact. Dkt.
25, at 10-16. Plaintiff’s “explanation of each numbered document submitted as factual
evidence,” Dkt. 38, appears to be an attempt at drafting her proposed findings of fact, but it
does not comply with this court’s requirements.
For each numbered paragraph, plaintiff must first state the factual proposition and
then include a citation to the record. For example,
1. Plaintiff Smith bought six Holstein calves from Dell’s Dairy Farm on July 11,
2006. Harold Smith Affidavit, Jan. 6, 2007, p.1, ¶ 3.

The first part is the factual proposition that Smith bought six calves (i.e., what happened).
The second part is the citation to an affidavit that supports the proposition. If she can
support the proposition with a document, she can cite to the document by including a docket
number (e.g., Dkt. 19-1 for the proposition that she sent a letter on March 3, 2015). In sum,
Rounds-Rheaume must explain what happened and support her version of facts with
evidence. The court will not dig through her documents and make the case for her.
I will deny plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment without prejudice and give her an
opportunity to file a new motion along with new proposed findings of fact. Plaintiff may have
until March 31, 2017, which is the deadline for dispositive motions. Plaintiff should review
the examples of proposed findings of fact included in the pretrial conference order. Dkt. 25,
at 12-13. I will direct the clerk of court to send Rounds-Rheaume another copy of this court’s
pretrial conference order, which details the requirements Rounds-Rheaume must follow.
Dkt. 25, at 10-16.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff Rounds-Rheaume’s motion for summary judgment, Dkt. 36, is DENIED
without prejudice.
2. The clerk of court is directed to send plaintiff a copy of the court’s pretrial
conference order, Dkt. 25.
Entered January 17, 2017.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge

2