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.

Yanez v. P. Long

United States District Court, Seventh Circuit

October 18, 2013

JOSE LUIS YANEZ, Plaintiff,
v.
P. LONG, Defendant.

REPORT AND RECOMMEDATION

STEPHEN C. WILLIAMS, Magistrate Judge.

On October 15, 2013, the Court held a hearing on Defendant Long's Motion to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution. (Doc. 29). Plaintiff appeared for himself, and Paula Bouldon appeared on behalf of Defendant Long. A Court-approved interpreter was also present to interpret the proceedings for Plaintiff. The matter has been referred to United States Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Williams by United States District Judge Michael J. Reagan pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(B) and (C), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), and Local Rule 72.1(a) for a Report and Recommendation. For the following reasons, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 29) be DENIED.

Defendant moved to dismiss this case for lack of prosecution pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) because Plaintiff had not met his obligation to keep the Court informed of his current address, and had not responded to Defendant's discovery requests. (Doc. 29). Defendant conceded that he had not previously brought any discovery difficulties to the undersigned's attention. Defendant also conceded that since the filing of his Motion, Plaintiff had filed a Notice of Change of Address and sent Defendant responses to his discovery requests. Plaintiff also participated in the initial hearing on September 18, 2013, and the continuation on October 15, 2013. Therefore, because it appears that Plaintiff is interested in pursuing his case, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that the Court DENY Defendant's Motion. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 73.1(b), the parties may object to any or all of the proposed dispositive findings in this Recommendation. The failure to file a timely objection may result in the waiver of the right to challenge this Recommendation before either the District Court or the Court of Appeals. See, e.g., Snyder v. Nolen, 380 F.3d 279, 284 (7th Cir. 2004). Objections to this Report and Recommendation must be filed on or before November 4, 2013. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(d); SDIL-LR 5.1(c).

IT IS SO ORDERED.


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.