Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Young v. Bus Terminal

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS Urbana Division


May 20, 2010

ANTHONY PAUL YOUNG, PLAINTIFF,
v.
BUS TERMINAL, ET AL., DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: David G. Bernthal U.S. Magistrate Judge

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

On March 12, 2010, Plaintiff, Anthony Paul Young, proceeding pro se, filed a Complaint (#1). He did not sign the complaint. He did not tender summons forms for each Defendant he sued. He did not tender completed U.S. Marshal service forms as required. On March 15, 2010, the Court entered an Order (#3) in which these significant deficiencies were pointed out to Plaintiff. He was ordered to correct the deficiencies and notified that failure to comply would result in the denial of leave to proceed in forma pauperis and summary dismissal of the case.

Although Plaintiff has tendered numerous filings subsequent to the March 15, 2010, Order, he has not cured the stated deficiencies. He has been given specific notice of the deficiencies. He has been informed that failure to cure those deficiencies would result in the denial of his Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (#2). He was also warned that the failure could result in the summary dismissal of his case.

In light of the foregoing, I recommend pursuant to my authority under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) that Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (#2) be DENIED, the Complaint (#1) be dismissed, and the case terminated.

Plaintiff is advised that any objection to this recommendation must be filed in writing with the Clerk within 14 days after being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Failure to object will constitute a waiver of objections on appeal. Video Views, Inc. v. Studio 21, Ltd., 797 F.2d 538 (7th Cir. 1986).

ENTER this 20th day of May, 2010.

20100520

© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.