McGee v. Sugars

N.D. Illinois

McGee v. Sugars

DecidedMarch 14, 2025

Docket3:22-cv-50240

StatusUnknown

This text of McGee v. Sugars (McGee v. Sugars) 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

McGee v. Sugars, (N.D. Ill. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS Rodney Lane McGee ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Case No. 22 C 50240 Vv. ) ) Hon. Margaret J. Schneider D. Sugars, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Pro se Plaintiff, Rodney Lane McGee, has failed to appear for two scheduled Court appearances. He first failed to appear for a telephonic status conference scheduled for February 13, 2025. [88]. Plaintiff was present in Court on December 12, 2024 when the Court set the date and time for the February 13, 2025 telephonic status conference. See [85]. The Court also mailed the order setting the February 13, 2025 telephonic status conference to Plaintiff. The docket does not reflect that this order was returned as undeliverable. After Plaintiff failed to appear at the February 13, 2025 status conference, the Court set a subsequent status conference for March 13, 2025 at 9:45 a.m. [88]. The Court mailed a copy of the order setting the telephonic status conference to Plaintiff. The order warned that the Court could issue a report and recommendation to the District Court recommending that this case be dismissed for want of prosecution if Plaintiff failed to appear. [88]. The docket does not reflect that this order was returned as undeliverable. Plaintiff again failed to appear on March 13, 2025 [89]. At both status conferences, defense counsel reported to the Court that counsel has had no contact with Plaintiff since December 2024. Based on Plaintiff's repeated failures to appear, 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 March 28, 2025. 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 Plaintiff. Date: March 14, 2025 ENTER:

LEW” Argo bekridr United States Magistrate 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 Rodney Lane McGee ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Case No. 22 C 50240 Vv. ) ) Hon. Margaret J. Schneider D. Sugars, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Pro se Plaintiff, Rodney Lane McGee, has failed to appear for two scheduled Court appearances. He first failed to appear for a telephonic status conference scheduled for February 13, 2025. [88]. Plaintiff was present in Court on December 12, 2024 when the Court set the date and time for the February 13, 2025 telephonic status conference. See [85]. The Court also mailed the order setting the February 13, 2025 telephonic status conference to Plaintiff. The docket does not reflect that this order was returned as undeliverable. After Plaintiff failed to appear at the February 13, 2025 status conference, the Court set a subsequent status conference for March 13, 2025 at 9:45 a.m. [88]. The Court mailed a copy of the order setting the telephonic status conference to Plaintiff. The order warned that the Court could issue a report and recommendation to the District Court recommending that this case be dismissed for want of prosecution if Plaintiff failed to appear. [88]. The docket does not reflect that this order was returned as undeliverable. Plaintiff again failed to appear on March 13, 2025 [89]. At both status conferences, defense counsel reported to the Court that counsel has had no contact with Plaintiff since December 2024. Based on Plaintiff's repeated failures to appear, 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 March 28, 2025. 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 Plaintiff. Date: March 14, 2025 ENTER:

LEW” Argo bekridr United States Magistrate Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

McGee v. Sugars, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcgee-v-sugars-ilnd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack