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.

Rollins v. Graphic Packaging and United Steel Workers Local 188

United States District Court, Seventh Circuit

December 26, 2013

JAMES ROLLINS, Plaintiff,
v.
GRAPHIC PACKAGING AND UNITED STEEL WORKERS LOCAL 188, Defendant.

ORDER

MICHAEL M. MIHM, District Judge.

On December 4, 2013, Magistrate Judge John Gorman issued his Report and Recommendation recommending that this matter be dismissed for want of prosecution. (ECF No. 5). 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. ยง 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 Plaintiff has 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 28, 2013, Plaintiff James Rollins, pro se, filed this action for age and disability discrimination. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff has taken no action to obtain service of process on the Defendants. On October 30, 2013, over four months after the lawsuit was filed, an order was entered directing the Plaintiff to: (1) serve summons or (2) prepare and send a notice of lawsuit and request for waiver to each of the Defendants, within 21 days of the entry of the order. (ECF No. 4). In granting the additional time, the Magistrate Judge specifically admonished Plaintiff that the failure to take the necessary action may result in the dismissal of the case. Id. The record is void of any action on the part of the Plaintiff. Furthermore, Plaintiff has not objected to the Report and Recommendation.

Accordingly, the Court finds that this matter should be dismissed. The Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation in its entirety. The Plaintiff's lack of response to the Court's directive is a clear indication of his desire not to continue this matter. Plaintiff was warned that the failure to take the necessary action would result in the dismissal of his case. The Court finds that this matter should be dismissed for want of prosecution.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the Court now adopts the Report & Recommendation (ECF No. 5) of the Magistrate Judge in its entirety. This matter is DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. This Case is TERMINATED.


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.