Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Buy This Entire Record For
Warren v. Briggs
January 21, 2009
CHARLES S. WARREN, PLAINTIFF,
JOHN M. BRIGGS, TOM BOND, STEVEN M. SETTINGSGAARD, JIM ARDIS, AND CITY OF PEORIA, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael M. Mihm United States District Judge
On December 17, 2008, 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 false arrest, excessive force, unreasonable search and seizure, and assault and battery in conjunction with his arrest for "walking on a highway," resisting arrest, and obstruction of justice; these charges were subsequently dismissed. He further alleges claims for failure to train the officers and an unconstitutional policy of condoning misconduct by the officers. Defendants Settingsgaaard and Ardis have moved to dismiss portions of the Amended Complaint directed toward them.
The Court concurs with the recommendation that Plaintiff has stated no cognizable claim against Defendant Ardis in his individual capacity and that any claim against either Mayor Ardis or Chief Settingsgaard in their official capacities is duplicative of the claim against the City of Peoria. The Court further agrees that given the minimal requirements of federal notice pleadings, Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged an individual capacity claim against Chief Settingsgaard and an unconstitutional policy claim against the City of Peoria.
Accordingly, the Court now adopts the Report & Recommendation [#22] of the Magistrate Judge in its entirety. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [#18] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Defendant Ardis is terminated as a party to this litigation, and Defendant Settingsgaard is dismissed in his official capacity only. The Motion to Dismiss is denied in all other respects, leaving individual capacity claims against Defendants Briggs, Bond, and Settingsgaard, as well as an unconstitutional policy claim against the City of Peoria, to go forward into discovery.
ENTERED this 21st day of January, 2009.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw ...
Buy This Entire Record For