Dee Farmer v. Edward Brennan, Dennis Kurzydlo, Larry E. Dubois

Seventh Circuit

Dee Farmer v. Edward Brennan, Dennis Kurzydlo, Larry E. Dubois

11 F.3d 668, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 38277, 1992 WL 551148

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

DecidedAugust 7, 1992

Docket92-1772

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 11 F.3d 668 (Dee Farmer v. Edward Brennan, Dennis Kurzydlo, Larry E. Dubois) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dee Farmer v. Edward Brennan, Dennis Kurzydlo, Larry E. Dubois, 11 F.3d 668, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 38277, 1992 WL 551148 (7th Cir. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

This matter comes before the court for its consideration upon the request for the following documents:

1. PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AND TO PROCEED ON APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS” filed herein on 5/28/92, by the appellant.

2. “MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CASES” filed herein on 7/17/92, by the appellant.

This court has carefully reviewed the final order of the district court, the record on appeal and the appellant’s motion. Based on this review, the court has determined that any issues which could be raised are insubstantial and the filing of briefs would not be helpful to the court’s consideration of the issues. See Mather v. Village of Mundelein, 869 F.2d 356, 357 (7th Cir.1989) (per curiam) (court can decide case on motions papers and record where briefing would be a waste of time and no member of the panel desires briefing or argument). Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the appellant’s motion for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis is DENIED and the district court is summarily AFFIRMED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to consolidate cases is DENIED AS MOOT.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

This matter comes before the court for its consideration upon the request for the following documents:

1. PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AND TO PROCEED ON APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS” filed herein on 5/28/92, by the appellant.

2. “MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CASES” filed herein on 7/17/92, by the appellant.

This court has carefully reviewed the final order of the district court, the record on appeal and the appellant’s motion. Based on this review, the court has determined that any issues which could be raised are insubstantial and the filing of briefs would not be helpful to the court’s consideration of the issues. See Mather v. Village of Mundelein, 869 F.2d 356, 357 (7th Cir.1989) (per curiam) (court can decide case on motions papers and record where briefing would be a waste of time and no member of the panel desires briefing or argument). Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the appellant’s motion for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis is DENIED and the district court is summarily AFFIRMED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to consolidate cases is DENIED AS MOOT.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 F.3d 668, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 38277, 1992 WL 551148, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dee-farmer-v-edward-brennan-dennis-kurzydlo-larry-e-dubois-ca7-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack