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.

Malone v. Backman

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS


March 29, 2006

ANTHONY MALONE AND BARBARA SIMS-MALONE, PLAINTIFFS,
v.
JONATHAN A. BACKMAN AND LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN A. BACKMAN, DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael M. Mihm United States District Judge

ORDER

On March 8, 2006, a Report & Recommendation was filed by Magistrate Judge Byron G. Cudmore in the above captioned case. More than ten (10) days have elapsed since the filing of the Report & Recommendation, and no objections have been made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Lockert v. Faulkner, 843 F.2d 1015 (7th Cir. 1988); and Video Views, Inc. v. Studio 21, Ltd., 797 F.2d 538, 539 (7th Cir. 1986). As the parties failed to present timely objections, any such objections have been waived. Id.

The relevant background and procedural history are sufficiently set forth in the comprehensive Report & Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. Suffice it to say that Plaintiffs' Complaint alleges that Defendants violated state law and Plaintiffs' constitutional rights during the time Attorney Backman represented them. Specifically, Plaintiffs contend that Defendants' misrepresented them in a state court action and threatened and intimidated them after Plaintiffs had fired him as their attorney. After reviewing Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the case be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court concurs. However, the Court disagrees with the Magistrate Judge's ruling to the extent that he dismissed all of Plaintiffs' claims without prejudice.

With respect to Plaintiffs' state law claims, the Court agrees that these claims should be dismissed without prejudice because they do not arise out of diversity of citizenship or contain a federal question. However, with respect to Plaintiffs' constitutional claims, the Court finds that Plaintiffs' claims should be dismissed with prejudice. As described in detail in the Magistrate Judge's Order, Defendant is not a state actor and there is no basis for believing that Defendant was acting pursuant to governmental authority. Therefore, Plaintiffs' constitutional claims are dismissed with prejudice because they fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Accordingly, the Court adopts the Report & Recommendation [#15] of the Magistrate Judge in part. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [#9] is GRANTED, Plaintiffs' state law claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and Plaintiffs' constitutional claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

ENTERED this 29th day of March, 2006.

20060329

© 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.