UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
October 27, 2011
CHRISTOPHER M. HICKS, PLAINTIFF,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael M. Mihm United States District Judge
Thursday, 27 October, 2011 02:23:09 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
On October 7, 2011, Magistrate Judge Byron Cudmore issued his Report and Recommendation [#14] recommending that Defendant United States of America's Motion to Dismiss [#10] be GRANTED and/or that this matter be DISMISSED for want of prosecution. 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 (7thCir. 1986). As the parties failed to present timely objections, any such objections have been waived. Id. The Court reviews the Magistrate Judge's recommendation for clear error. See Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999).
On July 27, 2011, the United States filed its motion to dismiss asserting that this matter should be dismissed because the Plaintiff had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as required under the Federal Tort Claims Act prior to filing this suit. Additionally, the United States asserted that its had not waived its sovereign immunity regarding slander claims as it has been asserted in this case by the Plaintiff and thus, this case should be dismissed. Plaintiff had until August 15, 2011, to file his response to the United States' Motion. No response was filed by the required date; however, the Magistrate Judge allowed Plaintiff until September 2, 2011, to file his response. In granting the additional time, the Magistrate Judge specifically admonished Plaintiff that the failure to respond would result in the Motion being allowed. See Text Order entered August 19, 2011. Plaintiff failed to respond by the time allotted by the Magistrate Judge. Under Local Rule 7.1(B)(2), "if no response is timely filed, the presiding judge will presume there is no opposition to the motion and may rule without further notice to the parties." The Magistrate Judge waited over a month from the date he had allowed the Plaintiff to file a response before issuing his Report and Recommendation In reviewing the Motion, the Court finds that this matter should be dismissed. The United States asserted that Plaintiff had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing this suit and Plaintiff has filed no objection to this assertion. As such, the Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's recommendation that the Motion to Dismiss [#10] be GRANTED. The Court also agrees with the Magistrate Judge that Plaintiff's inaction in responding in any fashion to the United States' Motion is a clear indication of his desire to continue this matter. Plaintiff was warned that the failure to respond would result in the granting of the United States' Motion resulting in the dismissal of his case. The Court finds that this matter should also be dismissed for want of prosecution.
Accordingly, the Court now adopts the Report & Recommendation [#14] of the Magistrate Judge in its entirety. Defendant, United States of America's Motion to Dismiss [#10] is GRANTED. This Case is TERMINATED.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.