Opinion
No. 3:04cv0263 AS.
March 20, 2007
MEMORANDUM, OPINION AND ORDER
This case was filed pro se by Debra Kay Rosetto on or about April 19, 2004, and the case has thus far generated at least 86 items in the docket sheet including the filing of a Report and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge Christopher A. Nuechterlein on February 26, 2006, which this court has carefully considered. This court is mandated to greatly indulge pro se plaintiffs. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972). See also Smith v. Fairman, 862 F.2d 630 (7th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1008 (1989); and Cain v. Lane, 857 F.2d 1139 (7th Cir. 1988). See also McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106 (1993).
The magistrate judge has given very close attention to this complaint and record regarding an employment discrimination claim based on gender. He has also carefully and correctly dealt with the relevant authorities involved in Rule 56, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Following that, he has also dealt accurately with those relevant authorities in this circuit dealing with this subject matter. Once again, he's got it correct.
Fully understanding the nature of pro se litigation and giving full attention to the record in this case, this court does not hesitate to now APPROVE the aforesaid Report and Recommendation and ORDER that the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment be DENIED and the defendant Office Max's summary judgment motion be GRANTED. Each party shall bear its own costs. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly. IT IS SO ORDERED.