—

ate Gang Form (06/97) ( 9
United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois -
wevon Magistrate Judge James B. Moran “Than ssgned Judge
CASE NUMBER 02 C 2336 DATE 8/22/2002
CASE United States of America vs. Herman Davis
TITLE
[In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, e.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature
MOTION: of the motion being presented.}
Memorandum Opinion and Order
DOCKET ENTRY:
qd) ag Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]
(2) Do Brief in support of motion due
(3) oO Answer brief to motion due___. Reply to answer brief due___.
(4) im Ruling/Hearingon_—ssetfor_ at
(5) a Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on setfor at
(6) i Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on___setfor___sat__—
(7) Oo Trial[set for/re-set for]on____at
(8) Oo [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to__at
(9) o This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]
OOFRCP4(m) OlLocal Rule 41.1 OFRCP41(a)(1) [1 FRCP41(a)(2).
co) of {Other docket entry] | Enter Memorandum Opinion and Order. Defendant moves for summary

(1)

judgment or for dismissal. That motion is denied. Status hearing set for October 16, 2002 at 9:15am.

| [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]

No notices required, advised in open court.

No notices required.
suimber of notices,

Notices mailed by judge’s staff.

AU
Notified counsel by telephone. 6 23 3 2m

date docket

Docketing to mail notices.

Mail AO 450 form.

Copy to judge/magistrate judge.

date mailed notice

COs8 ty azony? 20

courtroom,
WAH deputy’s vce ae
initials oid a
Date/time received'in
central Clerk's Office mailing deputy initiats



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

EASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
Plaintiff, }

vs. ‘ No. 02 C 2336 O0CKe TED

HERMAN DAVIS, } AUG 2 3 202
Defendant. }

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

The government sues defendant for refund of benefits it claims were erroneously paid
to defendant while he was gainfully employed elsewhere. Defendant moves for summary
judgment or for dismissal. That motion is denied.

The motion, filed pro se, does not comply with Local Rule 56.1. Defendant has filed
neither affidavits nor any statement of material facts about which he claims there are no
genuine disputes, with citations to the record to establish what those facts may be. It is,
rather, an answer of sorts to the complaint, and we accept it as such. Defendant seems to
concede that he may owe something to the government, although he claims he got erroneous
advice from the Railroad Retirement Board. But we cannot sort out the facts based on his
assertions. We suggest that defendant contact the government attorney to discuss a resolution
of this matter. In the meantime, the parties may seek to pin down what the facts are through
discovery. This matter is set for a status call in court at 9:15 a.m. on October 16, 2002, to
determine what progress the parties have made and what and when what further needs to be

done.

( bug AL, 2002.

JAMES B. MORAN
ior Judge, U. S. District Court