Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Stanley Henry v. Harold Buchmeier

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS


August 31, 2012

STANLEY HENRY, PLAINTIFF,
v.
HAROLD BUCHMEIER, JOHN COX, SHANE HARRISON, GLENN HOWARD, DARRYL KERN, MARY ANN SCHUTT, RAY SOLIDAY, CHARLEY STEVENS, NORMAN SUITS, DAVID TAYLOR, AND DAMON WOOLRIDGE, DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Reagan, District Judge:

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

In January 2010, Plaintiff Stanley Henry filed suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging deprivations of his constitutional rights by personnel at Vienna Correctional Center (located within the Southern District of Illinois). On July 12, 2012, faced with Defendants' motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff Henry moved to voluntarily dismiss this action, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2) (Doc. 85). Defendants do not object to the proposed voluntary dismissal, but they ask that Plaintiff be subject to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(d).

In accord with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Williams issued a report (Doc. 90) and recommended Plaintiff's motion to dismiss be granted, and the case be dismissed without prejudice. Judge Williams further recommended that if Plaintiff were to attempt to file a new claim based on the same allegations, Plaintiff should be ordered to comply with the terms of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(d), in that Plaintiff would then be required to pay all of the cost of this prior action and the proceedings of the new case would be stayed

until that payment was made.

Both the report and a separate notice attached advised the parties of their right to challenge Judge Williams' report and recommendation by filing objections within fourteen days. To date, no objections have been filed by the parties, no extension of the deadline was sought, and the period in which such objections may be filed has expired.

Therefore, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), this Court need not conduct de novo review. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-52 (1985); Video Views Inc., v. Studio 21, Ltd., 797 F.2d 538 (7th Cir. 1986).

Accordingly, the undersigned District Judge ADOPTS in its entirety Judge Williams' Report and Recommendation (Doc. 90), GRANTS PlaintiffHenry's motion to voluntarily dismiss this action without prejudice(Doc. 85), and DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to enter judgment reflecting that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice, with all parties bearing their own costs.

It is further ordered that, in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(d), if Plaintiff files another action based on or including the same claim(s) against any of the Defendants in this action, Plaintiff will be ordered to pay all of the costs of this action, and the new action will be stayed until Plaintiff has complied with this payment requirement.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

MICHAEL J. REAGAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20120831

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.