Matches in SCALES for { <scales/DocketEntry/ilnd;;1:08-cv-05981_de87> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 3 of
3
with 100 items per page.
- ilnd;;1:08-cv-05981_de87 RegisterActionDate "2011-02-04" @default.
- ilnd;;1:08-cv-05981_de87 RegisterActionDescriptionText "MINUTE entry before Honorable Jeffrey Cole: Following my recommendation to Judge Gettleman dated 1/31/2011 that the case be dismissed for want of prosecution, I received an undated letter from DB5780A. I construe Mr. DB5780A letter as a motion to reconsider the Report and Recommendation. But the letter is addressed to the wrong court. To the extent that I have jurisdiction in the absence of a re-referral to reconsider my recommendation, the motion is denied for failure to properly notice and present the motion pursuant to Local Rule 5.3(b). Mr. DB5780A is not at liberty to communication with any court by letter. If he is seeking judicial relief, he must notice the motion properly and appear in court, which he chooses not to do. As noted in the Report and Recommendation, Mr. DB5780A is no stranger to litigation in this court and he is, or should be, familiar with the most basic rules that govern all parties in this court. It is simply unfair for him to require his opponent in this or any other case to expend resources by having counsel appear in court while Mr. DB5780A chooses not to appear. Mr. DB5780A is again reminded that pro se litigants are not exempt from the rules that govern other litigants in civil litigation. See McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993); Pearle Vision, Inc. v. Romm, 541 F.3d 751, 758 (7th Cir.2008); McKinney v. Guthrie, 309 Fed.Appx. 586, 590, 2009 WL 274159, 3 (3rd Cir. 2009); Mathis v. New York Life Ins. Co., 133 F.3d 546, 548 (7th Cir. 1998) (per curiam). Mailed notice (gmr, ) (Entered: 02/04/2011)" @default.
- ilnd;;1:08-cv-05981_de87 AdministrativeID "86" @default.