The opinion of the court was delivered by: MICHAEL J. REAGAN, District Judge
On April 23, 2004, Plaintiff Roman Shaw filed a complaint
alleging his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated
by Defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1). Shaw
claims that he was falsely arrested on September 19, 2002 while
in state court on another matter. His complaint is against
Madison County, Illinois, where he was arrested, the presiding
judge, Judge Clarence Harrison, and Chief Judge Edward Ferguson,
in a supervisory capacity.
Summons was issued to Shaw on April 23, 2004 for Judge Ferguson
and Chief Judge Harrison. On July 1, 2004, the docket sheet
reflects that a document entitled "Certificate of Service"
directed to the "Attorney General Metro East" was filed by Shaw.
On January 11, 2005, the Clerk of this Court issued a notice of
impending dismissal for failure to effect service on Defendants.
On January 21, 2005, Shaw filed two further documents that appear
to indicate a return of service on Judge Ferguson and Chief Judge
Harrison. No appearance or responsive pleadings have been filed
for any of Defendants.
On April 27, 2005, United States Magistrate Judge Donald G.
Wilkerson submitted a Report (Doc. 10) recommending that the
undersigned District Judge dismiss without prejudice Shaw's complaint. The Report states that Shaw's complaint is so
vague and incomprehensible that it fails to satisfy FEDERAL RULE
OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 8(a)'s pleading requirements. Additionally,
the Report states that Shaw has failed to effectuate proper
service on any of the Defendants pursuant to FEDERAL RULE OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE 4. Accordingly, the Report recommends that
Shaw's complaint be dismissed without prejudice and that Shaw be
directed to file an amended complaint clearly delineating his
claims as to each Defendant.
Magistrate Judge Wilkerson's Report was sent on April 27, 2005,
to the parties with a "NOTICE" informing them of 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 Wilkerson's
Report (Doc. 10) and DISMISSES without prejudice Shaw's
complaint (Doc. 1). The Court DIRECTS Shaw to file an amended
complaint clearly delineating his claims as to each Defendant on
or before Friday, June 24, 2005. The Court WARNS Shaw that
failure to file an amended complaint on or before June 24, 2005
will result in dismissal of this matter with prejudice and this
matter will be closed.
© 1992-2005 VersusLaw ...