UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
May 26, 2006
PHILLIP DOYLE, PLAINTIFF,
CHIEF JUDGE OF THE TENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY, AND PEORIA COUNTY, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael M. Mihm United States District Judge
This matter is before the Court on the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation [#31] regarding Defendants Motions to Dismiss. The Magistrate Judge recommended that Defendant Chief Judge of the Tenth Judicial Circuit's Motion to Dismiss be granted in part and denied in part. Additionally, the Magistrate Judge recommended that Defendant Peoria County's Motion to Dismiss be denied.
In making these recommendations, the Magistrate Judge concluded that (1) Plaintiff may be able to prove that he had a legitimate protectable interest in his employment and therefore his Fourteenth Amendment claim against Peoria County should be allowed to proceed to discovery; (2) Plaintiff's § 1983 claim for money damages against the Chief Judge is barred by the Eleventh Amendment; (3) Plaintiff's § 1983 claims for injunctive relief against the Chief Judge are not barred by the Eleventh Amendment; and (4) Plaintiff's retaliatory discharge claim against the Chief Judge is barred by sovereign immunity. 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. This Court therefore ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge [#31]. Accordingly, Peoria County remains a defendant in this case, and the Chief Judge remains in the case only to the extent that Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief.
ENTERED this 26th day of May, 2006.
© 1992-2006 VersusLaw Inc.