UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
July 29, 2011
AMY ELISE ECKARDT, PLAINTIFF,
JUDGE STEPHEN KOURI, JUDGE RICHARD MCCOY, AND JUDGE ALBERT PURHAM, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael M. Mihm United States District Judge
Friday, 29 July, 2011 02:19:29 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
On July 5, 2011, a Report & Recommendation was filed by Magistrate Judge Byron G. Cudmore in the above captioned case. More than fourteen (14) 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. The Court concurs with the recommendation that pro se Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment be denied, and that Defendant Judge Purham's Motion for Leave to File Motion to Dismiss be allowed. The Court agrees that there is no identifiable prejudice to Plaintiff in allowing this case to be litigated on the merits where Defendant Purham's failure to file a timely responsive pleading caused only minimal delay in the case, he has shown good cause for the default, quick action to correct it, and a meritorious defense.
Accordingly, the Court now adopts the Report & Recommendation [#28] of the Magistrate Judge in its entirety. Pro se Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment [#25] is DENIED, Defendant Judge Purham's Motion for Leave to File Motion to Dismiss [#26] is ALLOWED, and the Clerk is directed to file instanter Defendant Purham's Motion to Dismiss. This matter is referred to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.