Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

KARMATZIS v. FOULKS

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois


May 3, 2005.

THOMAS KARMATZIS, Plaintiff,
v.
CAPTAIN FOULKS, Defendant.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: MICHAEL J. REAGAN, District Judge

MEMORANDUM and ORDER

Plaintiff Thomas Karmatzis, who was an inmate in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections at the time of the filing of his complaint, originally filed suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois on January 3, 2003 (Doc. 1). This matter was then transferred to this Court on March 3, 2003.

On April 13, 2005, United States Magistrate Judge Clifford J. Proud submitted a Report (Doc. 21) recommending that the undersigned District Judge dismiss without prejudice Plaintiff's complaint for failure to comply with the Orders of the Court. The Report states that Plaintiff sought leave to file an amended complaint, which the Court granted on September 30, 2004 (Doc. 14). The Report notes that in the Court's September 30, 2004 Order, the Court warned Plaintiff that failure to file an amended complaint as directed would result in the case being closed for failure to comply withthe Court's Order, citing FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 41(b), Ladien v. Astrachan, 128 F.3d 1051 (7th Cir. 1997), and Johnson v. Kamminga, 34 F.3d 466 (7th Cir. 1994). Doc. 14, p. 2. However, Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint within the time allowed. Instead, he sought another extension (Doc. 16). The Court granted the extension and gave Plaintiff sixty days to file his amended complaint (the amended complaint was due on December 29, 2004), warning Plaintiff that no further extensions would be granted (Doc. 17). The Report states that to date, no amended complaint has been filed as directed by the Court. As Plaintiff has been told in plain language that the failure to file an amended complaint as directed would result in his case being closed and been given the warning required by Ball v. City of Chicago, 2 F.3d 752 (7th Cir. 1993), the Report recommends that Plaintiff's complaint be dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with the Orders of this Court. Doc. 21, p. 2.

  Magistrate Judge Proud's Report was sent on April 13, 2005 to the parties with a "NOTICE" informing themof their right to appeal by way of filing "objections" within ten days of service of the Report. To date, no objections have been filed by the parties, and the period in which such objections may be filed has expired. Therefore, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), this Court need not conduct de novo review. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-52 (1985); Video Views Inc., v. Studio 21, Ltd., 797 F.2d 538 (7th Cir. 1986).

  The Court ADOPTS in its entirety Magistrate Judge Proud's Report (Doc. 21). Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES without prejudice Plaintiff's complaint (Doc. 1). This matter is now CLOSED.

  IT IS SO ORDERED.

20050503

© 1992-2005 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.