UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
August 29, 2007
OILY H. THOMAS, PETER GUZMAN, JAMES ARMSTRONG AND BRIAN SMITH, PLAINTIFFS,
ROGER E. WALKER, JR., SALVADOR GODINEZ, SHELTON FRYE, RUANN TANNER AND OFFICER DELGADO, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: J. Phil Gilbert District Judge
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation ("Report") (Doc. 39) of Magistrate Judge Clifford J. Proud recommending that the Court grant in part and deny in part the defendants' motion for summary judgment (Doc. 33). Specifically, the Report recommends granting the motion to the extent it seeks judgment on plaintiff Oily H. Thomas's claims in Count 1 and 2, and denying the motion to the extent it seeks judgment on plaintiff Brian Smith's and plaintiff Peter Guzman's claims in Count 1.
After reviewing a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, the Court may accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations of the magistrate judge in the report. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). The Court must review de novo the portions of the report to which objections are made. Id. "If no objection or only partial objection is made, the district court judge reviews those unobjected portions for clear error." Johnson v. Zema Systems Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999).
The Court has received no objection to the Report. The Court has reviewed the entire file and finds that the Report is not clearly erroneous in its reasoning and conclusions. However, some claims addressed in the Report have been disposed of on other grounds since the Report was issued, rendering the Report's recommendations moot in part. Specifically, the Report recommends entering judgment in favor of the defendants on Thomas's claim in Count 1 and denying judgment on Smith's and Guzman's claims in Count 1. However, the Court has dismissed Count 1 in its entirety -- the claims for money damages with prejudice and the claims for injunctive relief without prejudice for resolution in the class action Westefer v. Snyder, Case No. 00-cv-162-GPM -- by separate order (Doc. 53). Thus, the Report's recommendations as to Count 1 are moot. As for Count 2, the Report remains relevant, and the Court will therefore adopt it to the extent it deals with that count.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court:
* ADOPTS the Report (Doc. 33) as MODIFIED by this order;
* GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the defendants' motion for summary judgment (Doc. 33). The motion is GRANTED to the extent it seeks judgment against plaintiff Thomas on Count 2. The motion is DENIED to the extent it seeks judgment against plaintiff Thomas on Count 1 and plaintiffs Guzman and Smith on Counts 1 and 2; and
* DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to enter judgment accordingly at the close of the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2007 VersusLaw Inc.