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.

Hoppe v. White

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS


April 17, 2007

JAMES HOPPE, PLAINTIFF,
v.
JESSE WHITE, SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, AND OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE MERIT COMMISSION, DEFENDANTS.

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

ORDER

On March 30, 2007, 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 procedural history is sufficiently set forth in the comprehensive Report & Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. Suffice it to say that Plaintiff has brought this litigation alleging that Defendants violated his Fourth Amendment rights and retaliated against him for engaging in protected speech. The Court concurs with the recommendation that the Complaint does not state any cognizable Fourth Amendment claim but has sufficiently asserted a First Amendment claim. The Court would also agree that any references to the Fourteenth Amendment must be construed as incidental to the First Amendment claim rather than any attempt to make a separate claim, and the Plaintiff has not advised to the contrary. The claim against Jesse White in his official capacity must be dismissed on the basis of Eleventh Amendment immunity. The claims against the Office of the Secretary of State and the Merit Commission must also be dismissed, as neither entity is a "person" under § 1983.

Accordingly, the Court now adopts the Report & Recommendation [#8] of the Magistrate Judge in its entirety. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [#4] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, and Plaintiff will be granted 14 days from the date of this Order in which to file an amended complaint naming appropriate defendants in their appropriate capacities. This matter is again REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Cudmore for further proceedings.

20070417

© 1992-2007 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.