UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
March 27, 2009
TROY D. WHITMORE, PLAINTIFF,
LIEUTENANT WALKER, ET AL., 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 (R&R) of Magistrate Judge Proud recommending that the Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 107) filed on behalf of Defendants Carter, Casten, Ferrell, Fritz, Greenley, Henry, Helmer, Miner, Presswood, Rees, Tourville, Walker, Welborn, Westerman, and Witthoft be granted in part and denied in part. The time for filing objections to the R&R has passed.
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. "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 R&R The Court has reviewed the entire file and finds that the R&R is not clearly erroneous. Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety (Doc. 118). Defendants's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 107) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows:
Count 3 GRANTED as to defendants Tourville and Westerman;
Count 4 GRANTED as to defendants Moore, Ferrell, Welborn, Fritz, Casten;
Count 5 GRANTED as to defendant Casten;
Count 6 GRANTED as to defendants Moore and Walker;
Count 8 GRANTED as to defendant Carter Count 10 DENIED as to all defendants;
Count 15 DENIED as to all defendants;
Count 16 DENIED as to all defendants.
The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment accordingly at the close of the case .
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.