Durr v. United States Postal Service
| Stephen Durr |
| United States Postal Service |
| 1:2023cv01212 |
| February 27, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| Steven C Seeger |
| Civil Rights: Jobs |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 451 Employment Discrimination |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on April 11, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 10 NOTICE by Stephen Durr of minute order (of the court) to defendants (Exhibit) (exr, ) |
| Filing 9 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: Plaintiff's motion for entrance into settlement negotiations with Defendants (Dckt. No. #6 ) is hereby denied as premature. On February 27, 2023, Plaintiff filed a pro se complaint of employment discrimination against the U.S. Postal Service. Plaintiff basically alleges that the U.S. Postal Service failed to take his veteran status into account when it implemented an involuntary separation in May 1996. He seeks damages for the loss of income for the past 26 years. In the motion at hand, Plaintiff asks this Court to direct Defendants to enter into settlement discussions. That request is premature. Counsel for the government has not yet entered an appearance, let alone evaluated the case. Plaintiff may renew his request at a later time after the government's counsel comes on board. Mailed notice. (jjr, ) (Docket Text Modified on 4/19/2023) (jjr, ). |
| Filing 8 AFFIDAVIT of Service filed by Plaintiff Stephen Durr (exr, ) |
| Filing 7 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: An initial status report is due by May 15, 2023. Counsel must read the Standing Order entitled "Initial Status Conferences and Joint Initial Status Reports" on the Court's website. The parties must confer as required by Rule 26(f) about the nature, scope, and duration of discovery. The parties must submit two documents to the Court. First, the parties must file the Joint Initial Status Report under Rule 26(f) on the docket. A Word version of the Joint Initial Status Report is available on the Court's website. All parties must participate in the preparation and filing of the Joint Initial Status Report. The Court requires a joint report, so a filing by one side or the other is not sufficient. Second, the parties must email a Word version of a proposed Scheduling Order under Rule 16(b) to the Court's proposed order inbox. Lead counsel for the parties must participate in filing the initial status report. Plaintiff must serve this Order on all other parties. If the defendant has not been served with process, plaintiff's counsel must contact the Courtroom Deputy at jessica_j_ramos@ilnd.uscourts.gov to reschedule the initial status report deadline. Plaintiff should not file the Joint Initial Status Report before the defendant(s) has been served with process. The parties must discuss settlement in good faith and make a serious attempt to resolve this case amicably. All counsel of record must read and comply with this Court's Standing Orders on its webpage. Please pay special attention to the Standing Orders about Depositions and Discovery. Mailed notice. (jjr, ) |
| MAILED copy of the Clerk's Notice entry along with the Joint Consent Form to Plaintiff Stephen Durr. (rc, ) |
| Filing 6 MOTION by Plaintiff Stephen Durr for entrance into settlement negotiation with defendants. (rc, ) |
| Filing 5 SUMMONS Issued as to United States Postal Service, U.S. Attorney, and U.S. Attorney General. (rc, ) |
| Filing 3 PRO SE Appearance by Plaintiff Stephen Durr. (rc, ) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL Cover Sheet. (rc, ) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT filed by Stephen Durr. (Exhibits) (rc, ) |
| CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Steven C. Seeger. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Jeffrey T. Gilbert. Case assignment: Random assignment. (rc, ) |
| CLERK'S NOTICE: Pursuant to Local Rule 73.1(b), a United States Magistrate Judge of this court is available to conduct all proceedings in this civil action. If all parties consent to have the currently assigned United States Magistrate Judge conduct all proceedings in this case, including trial, the entry of final judgment, and all post-trial proceedings, all parties must sign their names on the attached #Consent To# form. This consent form is eligible for filing only if executed by all parties. The parties can also express their consent to jurisdiction by a magistrate judge in any joint filing, including the Joint Initial Status Report or proposed Case Management Order. (rc, ) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Illinois Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: Durr v. United States Postal Service | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Stephen Durr | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: United States Postal Service | |
| Represented By: | AUSA - Chicago |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
