Opinion
19-C-1059
01-18-2022
WILLIAM ROBERT SHAW, Plaintiff, v. TERRENCE GORDON, et al., Defendants.
DECISION AND ORDER
WILLIAM C. GRIESBACH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
On December 3, 2021, a jury returned a verdict in favor of Defendants. Dkt. No. 238. On January 13, 2022, Plaintiff William Robert Shaw filed a motion to amend/correct the official court record and/or a motion to supplement the court record. Dkt. No. 274. First, Shaw asserts that the minute entry for day three of the trial is incorrect because it states that the proceedings were before Judge William C. Griesbach even though Judge Brett H. Ludwig received the jury's verdict. Shaw is wrong; the minute entry is correct. It states that, on December 3, 2021, at 1:00 p.m., “Judge Ludwig [is] on the bench to take verdict for Judge Griesbach. Parties acknowledge they have consented to this.” Dkt. No. 240 at 3. Shaw's motion to correct the record will be denied.
Second, Shaw seeks to supplement the record by replacing the exhibit and witness lists filed by his counsel with the exhibit and witness lists he filed before counsel appeared on his behalf. He also identifies other documents he would like to supplement the record with. Shaw's motion is unnecessary and therefore will be denied. As Shaw states, the documents he would like to supplement the record with (his pretrial report, discovery documents, and miscellaneous exhibits) are already part of the record. See Dkt. Nos. 152-154, 158.
Finally, Shaw filed “objections” to allegedly outstanding motions in limine and “to the entire jury trial.” Dkt. No. 275. This case is closed, and Shaw has filed an appeal. As such, it is not clear why Shaw continues to file motions and objections in this Court. “As a general matter, a notice of appeal ‘divests the district court of its control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.'” May v. Sheahan, 226 F.3d 876, 879 (7th Cir. 2000) (quoting Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982)). To the extent Shaw disagrees with this Court's decisions, he should raise those disagreements with the appellate court.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Shaw's motion to amend/correct official court record and/or motion to supplement official court record (Dkt. No. 274) is DENIED.