Wenskunas v. CFT-III LLC, No. 3:2011cv03177 - Document 3 (C.D. Ill. 2011)
Court Description: OPINION: Pro Se Appellant John Weskunas' appeal is DISMISSED. This case is CLOSED. See written Opinion. Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 8/1/2011. (MJ, ilcd)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
E-FILED Monday, 01 August, 2011 03:32:43 PM Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS SPRINGFIELD DIVISION JOHN WESKUNAS, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appellant, v. CFT-III, LLC, Appellee. 11-3177 OPINION SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, U.S. District Judge This Court now considers pro se Appellant John Weskunas appeal of an Order from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of Illinois to this Court. See d/e 1. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), the appeal will be DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. FACTS Appellant filed his appeal on June 23, 2011. See d/e 1. This Court s briefing schedule for the appeal required Appellant to file a brief 1 by July 18, 2011. See d/e dated June 29, 2011. Appellant did not file a brief by that date. On July 31, 2011, Appellee CFT-III LLC filed a 2page long Appellee s Brief. The Appellee s Brief stated that Appellant failed to file a brief in this cause by the deadline established by the Court . . . . See d/e 2 at 1. JURISDICTION This Court has jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court. See 28 U.S.C. ยง 158(a). ANALYSIS In the federal courts, parties pleadings, motions, and supporting memoranda are measured by their content, not their title. Cf. Bartholet v. Reishauer A.G., 953 F.2d 1073, 1078 (7th Cir. 1992); Guyton v. United States, 453 F.3d 425, 427 (7th Cir. 2006). Applying this principle here, it appears that Appellee by reciting the Appellant s fail[ure] to file a brief is seeking involuntary dismissal of Appellant s appeal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Involuntary dismissal under Rule 41(b) is appropriate when a party 2 moves to dismiss another party s claim for want of prosecution. Id. Involuntary dismissal can also be ordered sua sponte by a court. See Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 138889, 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962) (holding that a sua sponte Rule 41(b) dismissal is proper to prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases and to avoid congestion on a court s calendar). Appellee s Brief can be construed as a Rule 41(b) motion. Furthermore, sua sponte dismissal is proper under Rule 41(b) because Appellant has not filed a brief in accordance with the briefing schedule. CONCLUSION THEREFORE, pro se Appellant John Weskunas appeal is DISMISSED. This case is CLOSED. ENTER: August 1, 2011 FOR THE COURT: s/ Sue E. Myerscough SUE E. MYERSCOUGH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 3
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
