The opinion of the court was delivered by: MICHAEL J. REAGAN, District Judge
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
© 1992-2005 VersusLaw ...