Minute

(\ United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

y
Va
Nathe of Assign e i Sitting Judge if Other
? or ble Milton I. Shadur than Assigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 01 C 9301 DATE 1/3/2002
V
CASE Adrian Martinez vs. Lexus of Naperville, et al
TITLE
[In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, ¢.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (6) state briefly the nature
MOTION: of the motion being presented.)

DOCKET ENTRY:

(a) oO Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]

(2) o Brief in support of motion due____.

(3) Qa Answer brief to motion due___._Reply to answer brief due.

(4) Qo Ruling/Hearing onset fort

(5) o Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on ____—_setfor__—_at

(6) im Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on___—ssetfor__—s at.
(7) im) Trial[set for/re-set for] on__ at

(8) qa [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued toa.

(9) a This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]

COFRCP4(m) General Rule21 OFRCP41(a)(1) CI FRCP41(a)(2).

(do) «of (Other docket entry] Enter Memorandum Order. For the reasons expressed in both of this Court’s
memorandum orders, both Martinez’ Complaint and this action are therefore dismissed as untimely. And
that dismissal moots Martinez’ Application To Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and his Motion for

Appointment of Counsel.
(1) @f {For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]
No notices required, advised in open court, Document
Number

No notices required.

umber of notices

o | Notices maited by judge’s staff.

Notified counsel by telephone. dite docketed,

Docketing to mail notices,

Mail AO 450 form.

Copy to judge/magistrate judge.

courtroom
SN deputy’s
initials

Date/time received in
‘central Clerk's Office



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

ADRIAN MARTINEZ,

)
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) No. 01 C 9301

)
LEXUS OF NAPERVILLE, et al., )
)

Defendants. ) ie

(Hd
MEMORANDUM ORDER day DD

This Court's December 6, 2001 memorandum order directed lop

plaintiff Adrian Martinez (“Martinez”) to explain the substantial

disparity between the date of EEOC's right-to-~-sue letters and

Martinez' claimed date of receipt of those letters--a disparity

that raised an obvious question as to the possible untimeliness

of Martinez' employment discrimination lawsuit against his former

employers Lexus of Naperville and Dan Wolf Motors of Naperville,

Inc, Because Martinez' December 13 “Additional Supplementary

Filing” really confirmed the potential untimeliness problem

rather than providing a satisfactory answer, this Court issued a

further memorandum order on December 13 that granted Martinez

some additional time (until December 27) to provide “any

explanation that would justify keeping his lawsuit in court.”

December 27 has now come and gone without anything further

from Martinez. For the reasons expressed in both of this Court's

memorandum orders, both Martinez'

therefore dismissed as untimely.

Complaint and this action are

And that dismissal moots


“e

Martinez' Application To Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and

his Motion for Appointment of Counsel.

Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge

Date: January 3, 2002