Taylor v. Freeman et al

Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
MARSHAWN TAYLOR,
Plaintiff,
v.
SGT. FREEMAN, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 25-cv-02046-SPM
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
MCGLYNN, District Judge:
Plaintiff Marshawn Taylor commenced this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging
violation of his constitutional rights during his incarceration at Big Muddy River Correctional
Center. On November 10, 2025, the Court issued an order directing Plaintiff to file a Notice and
Consent to Proceed Before a Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction Form indicating consent to proceed
before a magistrate judge or an affirmative declination to consent. (Doc. 6). Plaintiff failed to
return the form within the allotted time, and so, the Court issued another order on December 2,
2025, giving Plaintiff seven additional days to return the form or face possible sanctions. (Doc.
11). Again, Plaintiff missed the deadline. The Court then entered an order directing Plaintiff to
show cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to file the form, as is required under
Administrative Order No. 408. (Doc. 12). As of February 6, 2026, Plaintiff has not returned the
form or responded to the Court’s directive to explain why this case should not be dismissed. In
fact, the Court has not heard from Plaintiff since his original filing on November 10, 2025. Plaintiff
has ignored the Court’s directives and has failed to actively prosecute his claims. See F ED. R. C IV.
P. 41(b). The Court will not allow this matter to linger indefinitely.
For these reasons, this action is DISMISSED without prejudice, based on Plaintiff’s
failure to comply with the Court’s orders to file a Notice and Consent form and for failure to
Case 3:25-cv-02046-SPM Document 14 Filed 02/09/26 Page 1 of 2 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 2 of 2
prosecute his claims. See FED. R. C IV. P. 41(b); Ladien v. Astrachan, 128 F.3d 1051 (7th Cir. 1997);
Johnson v. Kamminga, 34 F.3d 466 (7th Cir. 1994).
Plaintiff is ADVISED that his obligation to pay the filing fee for this action was incurred
at the time the action was filed. Therefore, the filing fee of $350.00 remains due and payable. See
28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1); Lucien v. Jockisch, 133 F.3d 464, 467 (7th Cir. 1998).
If Plaintiff wishes to appeal this Order, he must file a notice of appeal with this Court within
thirty days of the entry of judgment. FED. R. APP . P. 4(a)(1)(A). If he does choose to appeal, he
will be liable for the $605.00 appellate filing fee irrespective of the outcome of the appeal. See
FED. R. APP . P. 3(e); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); Ammons v. Gerlinger, 547 F.3d 724, 725-26 (7th Cir.
2008); Sloan v. Lesza, 181 F.3d 857, 858-59 (7th Cir. 1999); Lucien, 133 F.3d at 467. He must list
each of the issues he intends to appeal in the notice of appeal and his motion for leave to appeal in
forma pauperis. See FED. R. APP . P. 24(a)(1)(C). Moreover, if the appeal is found to be
nonmeritorious, Plaintiff may also incur another “strike.” A proper and timely motion filed
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) may toll the 30-day appeal deadline. FED. R.
APP . P. 4(a)(4). A Rule 59(e) motion must be filed no more than twenty-eight (28) days after the
entry of judgment, and this 28-day deadline cannot be extended.
All pending motions are denied as moot. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close this
case and enter judgment accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: February 9, 2026
s/ Stephen P. McGlynn
STEPHEN P. MCGLYNN
United States District Judge
Case 3:25-cv-02046-SPM Document 14 Filed 02/09/26 Page 2 of 2 Page ID
#<pageID>