UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS PEORIA DIVISION
May 16, 2006
JOHNNY COMPTON, PLAINTIFF,
ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael M. Mihm United States District Judge
On April 28, 2006, a Report and Recommendation was filed by Magistrate Judge John A. Gorman 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 Court concurs with the analysis of the Magistrate Judge and finds that Plaintiff has not taken the necessary steps to prosecute this case. As set forth in the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, Defendant filed a Motion for Sanctions after Plaintiff failed to appear for a properly noticed deposition. In response, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Continue the date of the deposition asserting that he was not able to appear at the deposition because he had suffered a stroke and was under doctor's orders to avoid stressful situations. The Magistrate Judge ordered Plaintiff to file a letter from his physician detailing his condition and explaining when Plaintiff would be available to be deposed. Plaintiff failed to respond to the Court's order and therefore the Magistrate Judge recommended that this case be dismissed and the Motion for Sanctions be granted.
This Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge's analysis. This case is almost three and a half years old and Plaintiff has not yet been deposed. As recently as this previous December, the Court extended the schedule in this case and set March 31, 2006, as the discovery deadline. Defendant noticed Plaintiff's deposition for March 16, 2006, but Plaintiff failed to appear. Now, Plaintiff has failed to respond to the Court's Order directing him to file supplemental information from his doctor. Moreover, although Plaintiff was sent a copy of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, he has failed to object to the recommendation that this case be dismissed pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, the Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation [#51]. The above-titled action is DISMISSED pursuant to Rule 41(b) and Defendant's Motion for Sanctions is GRANTED. This case is TERMINATED.
ENTERED this 16th day of May, 2006.
© 1992-2006 VersusLaw Inc.