Jackson v. Hennig, Inc.

N.D. Illinois

Jackson v. Hennig, Inc.

DecidedSeptember 4, 2024

Docket3:23-cv-50142

StatusUnknown

This text of Jackson v. Hennig, Inc. (Jackson v. Hennig, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jackson v. Hennig, Inc., (N.D. Ill. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS WESTERN DIVISION Tyduntrae Jackson, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Case No. 23 C 50142 Vv. ) ) Hon. Margaret J. Schneider ) Hennig, Inc., et al., ) ) Defendants. ) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION This employment discrimination action was filed by Plaintiff, through counsel, on April 25, 2023 [1]. On April 1, 2024, counsel filed a motion to withdraw as counsel [43]. Counsel advised the Court that counsel attempted to communicate with Plaintiff via phone, text message, email, and U.S. Mail and, despite these efforts, Plaintiff made no effort to communicate with him. Id. Therefore, the Court granted counsel’s motion to withdraw [44]. Subsequently, Plaintiff failed to appear at the Court ordered telephonic status conferences on June 6, 2024 [51], July 24, 2024 [54], and August 15, 2024 [56]. The Clerk’s Office provided Plaintiff with notice of each scheduled Court hearing at his last known address. The docket does not show that any mail sent to Plaintiff was returned undeliverable. On July 25, 2024, defense counsel reported to the Court that counsel had no recent contact with Plaintiff and Plaintiff had failed to respond to written discovery requests [54]. Counsel advised the Court at the hearing held on August 15, 2024, that he had no contact with Plaintiff. The Court’s August 15, 2024, order indicated that the Court would issue a report and recommendation to the District Court recommending that this case be dismissed for want of prosecution [56]. That order was mailed to Plaintiff at his last known address. Based on Plaintiff's repeated failures to appear and participate in the initial stages of this litigation, it is the Court’s Report and Recommendation that the District Court dismiss this matter for want of prosecution. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Any objection to this Report and Recommendation must be filed by September 18, 2024. Failure to object may constitute a waiver of objections on appeal. See Provident Bank v. Manor Steel Corp., 882 F.2d 258, 260-61 (7th Cir. 1989). The Clerk is directed to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiffs last-known address, as reflected on the docket. Date: 09/04/2024 ENTER:

United Stites Magéstrate Judge

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS WESTERN DIVISION Tyduntrae Jackson, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Case No. 23 C 50142 Vv. ) ) Hon. Margaret J. Schneider ) Hennig, Inc., et al., ) ) Defendants. ) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION This employment discrimination action was filed by Plaintiff, through counsel, on April 25, 2023 [1]. On April 1, 2024, counsel filed a motion to withdraw as counsel [43]. Counsel advised the Court that counsel attempted to communicate with Plaintiff via phone, text message, email, and U.S. Mail and, despite these efforts, Plaintiff made no effort to communicate with him. Id. Therefore, the Court granted counsel’s motion to withdraw [44]. Subsequently, Plaintiff failed to appear at the Court ordered telephonic status conferences on June 6, 2024 [51], July 24, 2024 [54], and August 15, 2024 [56]. The Clerk’s Office provided Plaintiff with notice of each scheduled Court hearing at his last known address. The docket does not show that any mail sent to Plaintiff was returned undeliverable. On July 25, 2024, defense counsel reported to the Court that counsel had no recent contact with Plaintiff and Plaintiff had failed to respond to written discovery requests [54]. Counsel advised the Court at the hearing held on August 15, 2024, that he had no contact with Plaintiff. The Court’s August 15, 2024, order indicated that the Court would issue a report and recommendation to the District Court recommending that this case be dismissed for want of prosecution [56]. That order was mailed to Plaintiff at his last known address. Based on Plaintiff's repeated failures to appear and participate in the initial stages of this litigation, it is the Court’s Report and Recommendation that the District Court dismiss this matter for want of prosecution. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Any objection to this Report and Recommendation must be filed by September 18, 2024. Failure to object may constitute a waiver of objections on appeal. See Provident Bank v. Manor Steel Corp., 882 F.2d 258, 260-61 (7th Cir. 1989). The Clerk is directed to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiffs last-known address, as reflected on the docket. Date: 09/04/2024 ENTER:

United Stites Magéstrate Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Jackson v. Hennig, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jackson-v-hennig-inc-ilnd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack