UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
August 1, 2012
JACK A. BEASLEY, PLAINTIFF,
E. HAIRRS, 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") (Doc. 73) of Magistrate Judge Philip M. Frazier recommending that the Court grant the Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 69) of remaining Defendants Charles Dintelman and Crisey Fenton.
After reviewing a 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. Id. The Court has discretion to conduct a new hearing and may consider the record before the magistrate judge anew or receive any further evidence deemed necessary. Id. "If no objection or only partial objection is made, the district court judge reviews those unobjected portions for clear error." Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999). A party must raise specific objections to the report and recommendation. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). The term "specific as used in Rule 72(b) . . . require[s] a party only to specify each issue for which review is sought and not the factual or legal basis of the objection." Johnson, 170 F.3d at 741.
Here, Beasley filed a document entitled "Objections to Report and Recommendation" (Doc. 75). This document, however, does not object to any specific potion of the R & R. It simply informs the Court of various reasons why Beasley was late in filing an objection.
Accordingly, because Beasley failed to make any specific objections, the Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Frazier's R & R for clear error.
The Court has reviewed the entire file and finds that the R & R is not clearly erroneous. As such, the Court hereby ADOPTS the R & R (Doc. 73), which GRANTS the Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 69) of Defendants Charles Dintelman and Crisey Fenton. Further, as no claims remain pending, the Court DENIES the Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 74) and DISMISSES this matter with prejudice. Finally, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to enter judgment accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
J. Phil Gilbert
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.