IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS -- SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
August 12, 2010
LANCE S. JONES, PLAINTIFF,
WILLIE M. NEWBON, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Charles H. Evans United States Magistrate Judge
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The Complaint herein was filed October 30, 2009, based on the pro se Plaintiff's arrest and subsequent judicial proceedings. Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis was ALLOWED by the Court by text order of November 6, 2009 and on November 17, 2009 mail was Returned as Undeliverable (Not Deliverable as Addressed-Unable to Forward) re the Text Order of November 6, 2009. On December 8, 2009, pro se Plaintiff filed written notice of change of address and phone number. On December 29, 2009, Summonses were issued as to all defendants. On February 18, 2010, pro se Defendant Newbon filed an Answer (d/e 14). The other named defendants' Motions to Dismiss were granted by Judge Scott on June 18, 2010 (d/e 25). Those defendants were the arresting officer, prosecuting attorney and the trial judge. The Court has since that time set this case down between the two pro se parties for the purpose of entering a scheduling order, if necessary, and generally about further proceedings. The Court has been unable to contact the pro se Plaintiff by telephone on dates set for the hearings. On both July 7, 2010, and August 12, 2010, the Court attempted to telephonically contact pro se Plaintiff Jones at the phone number provided by plaintiff to the Court on December 8, 2009. Pro se Defendant Newbon was available. Pro se Plaintiff was notified of the scheduled telephone hearings and on both occasions the Court's attempts to contact the pro se Plaintiff at the phone number provided to the Clerk by the pro se Plaintiff have been unsuccessful. The pro se Plaintiff was notified at the time of the settings that the case could be dismissed for want of prosecution if the pro se Plaintiff was not available at the time of the settings. The pro se Plaintiff was unavailable at both attempted telephone hearings. The Court has not been advised of any phone number other than the one the pro se Plaintiff had provided to the Court nor has any notification or communication with regard to Plaintiff's unavailability been received from the pro se Plaintiff. The Court recommends that the pro se Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed for want of prosecution.
Plaintiff is advised that any objection to this Report and Recommendation must be filed in writing with the Clerk of the Court within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Failure to file a timely objection will constitute a waiver of objections on appeal. Video Views, Inc. v. Studio 21, Ltd. 797 F.2d 538, 539 (7th Cir. 1986). See Local Rule 72.2.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to send a copy of this Report and Recommendation to pro se Plaintiff at his last known address.
Entered this 12th day of August, 2010.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.