Brian Vukadinovich v. Richard A. Posner

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA HAMMOND DIVISION

BRIAN VUKADINOVICH,

Plaintiff,

v. CAUSE NO.: 2:22-CV-118-TLS-JEM

RICHARD A. POSNER,

Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on pro se Plaintiff Brian Vukadinovich’s Objection to Court’s Order of April 2, 2026 [ECF No. 329], in which, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 46, he objects to the Court’s April 2, 2026 Order, see ECF No. 328, denying his Motion for Review and Reconsideration of Parts of the Court’s January 5, 2026 Order and for Additional Relief Under Rule 60, see ECF No. 324. The Court denied the motion because the Plaintiff included requests for reconsideration of two orders and relief from judgment, which are separate motions and as such did not meet the requirements of Northern District of Indiana Local Rule 7-1(a). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 46 provides: A formal exception to a ruling or order is unnecessary. When the ruling or order is requested or made, a party need only state the action that it wants the court to take or objects to, along with the grounds for the request or objection. Failing to object does not prejudice a party who had no opportunity to do so when the ruling or order was made.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 46. “[Rule 46] applies to trials and ‘merely abolishes the necessity for formal exceptions to court rulings or orders.’” Dodd v. Warden, No. 3:19-CV-350, 2020 WL 8812774, at *1 (N.D. Ind. Aug. 24, 2020) (quoting Ellis v. City of Chicago, 667 F.2d 606, 610 (7th Cir. 1981)). However, there has been no trial in this case. Based on the foregoing, the Court hereby OVERRULES the Plaintiff’s Objection to Court’s Order of April 2, 2026 [ECF No. 329]. SO ORDERED on July 15, 2026. s/ Theresa L. Springmann JUDGE THERESA L. SPRINGMANN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT