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.

Jackson v. St. Clair County Jail

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS


January 30, 2006

RAFEAL ARLANDOS JACKSON, PLAINTIFF,
v.
ST. CLAIR COUNTY JAIL, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Herndon, District Judge

ORDER

Now before the Court is the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") (Doc. 26) issued pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) by Magistrate Judge Frazier denying Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. 22). In his Motion for Default Judgment, Plaintiff asserted that Defendants had not timely filed a response to his First Amended Complaint, and as such, he was entitled to a default judgment in his favor. Defendants opposed Plaintiff's Motion. (Doc. 23.)

Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint on September 23, 2005. (Doc. 17.) However, upon filing his Motion for Default based on Defendants' failure to respond, Plaintiff did not realize that he had not yet been granted leave to file his Amended Complaint by the Court. In fact, leave was not granted until January 3, 2006, and that Order also noted that Defendants had up until January 9, 2006, on which to file their Answer or otherwise plead to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. (Doc. 25.)

Accordingly, Judge Frazier recommended that Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment be denied, because Defendants still had time to file their answer or other responsive pleading. In other words, the Defendants were not yet in default. Following the R&R, Plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint on January 3, 2006. (Doc. 27.) Two days later, on January 5, 2006, Defendants filed their Answer. (Doc. 29.) The R&R was sent to the parties with a notice informing them of their right to appeal by way of filing "objections" within ten days of service. (See Doc. 26-2.) To date, none of the parties have filed objections, and the period in which to file objections 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). Thus, the Court ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety. Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. 22) is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

David RHerndon United States District Judge

20060130

© 1992-2006 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.