‘er Form (96/97)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

7

Fe.. {Assigned Jud i Sitting Judge if Other
‘ ov Magistrate Judge Milton I. Shadur thawrassieed Judge
CASE NUMBER 02 C 78 DATE 1/16/2002
CASE Tony Brown vs. United Parcel Service
TITLE

[ln the following box (a) indicate the party fiting the motion, e.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature

of the motion being presented.)

MOTION:

DOCKET ENTRY:

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

(2) ia Brief in support of motion due

(3) a Answer brief to motion due. . Reply to answer brief due___.

(4) o Ruling/Hearing on____sset for____at

(5) Q Status hearing[held/continued to} [set for/re-set for] on setfor at

(6) a Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on__—ssetfor__— ss at_—S
(7) QO Trial[set for/re-set for]on__— at.

(8) oO [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to__at

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

COFRCP4(m) CiGeneral Rule21 COFRCP41(a)\(1) OO FRCP41(a)(2).

ao) «il [Other docket entry] | Enter Memorandum Order. For the reasons stated here, both the Complaint
and this action must be and are dismissed, so that the Application is denied and the motion is denied as
moot. (4-1, 5-1)
db @ [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]
No notices required, advised in open court
No notices required. univer of notices.
V | Notices mailed by judge’s staff. 4 1 2002
Notified counsel by telephone. WAN vate dockered
Docketing to mail notices.
Y | Mail AO 450 form. docketing Lon
Copy to judge/magistrate judge.
2 1/16/2002
courtroom BS date puiled note
SN deputy’s ks sw
initials —
Datc/tinae’ regsived in
énteal Clerk’S Office iin depoty init



DOCKETED

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JAN 1 7 2002
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
TONY C. BROWN,
Plaintiff,
No. 02 C 78

v.

UNITED PARCEL SERVICE,

Defendant.
MEMORANDUM _ ORDER

Tony Brown (“Brown”) has filed a Complaint of Employment
Discrimination (using the form provided by this District Court's
Clerk's Office for use by pro se litigants) against his ex-
employer United Parcel Service (“UPS”), accompanying his
Complaint with an Application To Proceed Without Prepayment of
Fees (“Application”) and a Motion for Appointment of Counsel
(“Motion”), also on forms provided by the Clerk's Office. For
the reasons briefly stated here, both the Complaint and this
action must be and are dismissed, so that the Application is
denied and the Motion is denied as moot.

Based on what is set out in the Application, Brown qualifies
for in forma pauperis treatment in financial terms. But his
difficulty lies in the fact that he must also overcome the hurdle
of non-frivolousness in the legal sense defined by Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989) and refined by Denton v.
Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992). And in this instance the

Supreme Court's consistent jurisprudence, most recently last



week's unanimous decision in Toyota Motor Mfg., Ky., Inc. v.

Williams, No. 00-1089, 2002 WL 15402 (U.S. Jan. 8), bars his
claim without any possibility of a cure.

Brown seeks to invoke the Americans with Disabilities Act
(“ADA”) on the premise that UPS fired him unfairly because of his
having failed one of the drug tests that it administered in
conjunction with the drug abuse program in which Brown had
participated for an entire year. But that scenario simply does
not fit within the scope of any ADA-~protected situation under the
teaching of Toyota and earlier Supreme Court decisions.

Accordingly, as stated at the outset, both Brown's Complaint
and this action are dismissed. That in turn calls for denial of

the Application, while the Motion is denied as moot, and this

Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge

Court so orders.

Date: January 15, 2002