UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
December 22, 2009
JIM SERGISON, PLAINTIFF,
CATERPILLAR, INC., DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael M. Mihm United States District Judge
On November 24, 2009, 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 brought this qui tam action alleging that he was an employee of Caterpillar and was retaliated against for attempting to expose and correct unethical, illegal, and/or fraudulent conduct by other Caterpillar employees. The Government has declined to intervene to prosecute this case, and Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, has not requested more time to find an attorney. The Court concurs with the recommendation that this case must be dismissed as a qui tam action cannot be brought by pro se plaintiff under U.S. ex rel. Friedrich Lu v. Ou, 368 F.3d 773, 775 (7th Cir. 2004).
Accordingly, the Court now adopts the Report & Recommendation [#23] of the Magistrate Judge in its entirety. The Motions to Dismiss [#16 and #18] are therefore GRANTED. The Complaint is dismissed without prejudice to Plaintiff's ability to pursue any state law claims in state court.
ENTERED this 22nd day of December, 2009.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.