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.

Williams v. Baker

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

April 18, 2014

ROBERT WILLIAMS, Plaintiff,
v.
C/O BAKER, Defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

MICHAEL J. REAGAN, District Judge.

In August 2012, Robert Williams (incarcerated in Menard Correctional Center, within this Judicial District) filed this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. 1983. An Order on threshold review under 28 U.S.C. 1915A by District Judge G. Patrick Murphy found that Williams's complaint articulated a colorable federal claim for violation of the Eighth Amendment's protection against cruel and unusual punishment. The case progressed, a scheduling order was entered by Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson, motions were filed and resolved. In December 2013, the case was reassigned to the undersigned District Judge, after Judge Murphy retired. The undersigned set a firm trial date (see Doc. 43).

On January 23, 2014, Magistrate Judge Wilkerson submitted to the undersigned District Judge a Report (Doc. 47) recommending that the undersigned stay this case pending payment by Plaintiff of the $110.20 initial filing fee which Judge Murphy ordered him to pay in the October 2012 threshold review order. The Report further recommended that the Court order Plaintiff to pay the $110.20 within 60 days or his case would be dismissed. Plaintiff was given 14 days after service of the Report to file any objection. That deadline elapsed over two months ago, and Plaintiff filed no objection to the Report whatsoever. (Nor has he paid the $110.20 as instructed in October 2012.)

Pursuant to U.S.C. 636(b), the undersigned Judge need not conduct de novo review of the Report and Recommendations. 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(C) ("A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made."). See also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Johnson v. Zema Systems Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 741 (7th Cir. 1999); Video Views Inc., v. Studio 21, Ltd., 797 F.2d 538 (7th Cir. 1986).

The Court hereby ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Wilkerson's Report (Doc. 47) in its entirety, STAYS this case pending payment of the $110.20 initial filing fee, and WARNS Plaintiff that failure to pay the $110.20 by June 9, 2014 will result in dismissal of this case for failure to prosecute, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

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.