United States District Court, C.D. Illinois, Peoria Division
LUIS A. PLATA, Plaintiff,
EUREKA LOCKER, INC., Defendant.
MICHAEL M. MIHM, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Tom Schanzle-Haskins' Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 41) recommending that Defendant Eureka Locker, Inc's ("Eureka") Motion for Sanctions or Alternatively to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 41(b) ("Motion for Sanctions") (ECF No. 36) be allowed in part and denied in part. For the following reasons, the Motion for Sanctions or Alternatively to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 41(b) (ECF No. 36) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART and the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 41) is ADOPTED in its entirety.
Standard of Review
A district court reviews de novo any portion of a magistrate judge's report and recommendation to which written objections have been made. See FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b). "The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended decision, receive further evidence, or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions." Id. In this case, more than fourteen days elapsed since the filing of the Report & Recommendation, and no party has since served and filed a written objection to the Report. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b); ILCD-LR 72.2(B). As the parties failed to present timely objections, any such objections have been waived. 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). Accordingly, 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).
The relevant procedural history regarding the Parties' discovery dispute is sufficiently set forth in the comprehensive Report & Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. In sum, the discovery dispute stems from Eureka's interrogatories and request to produce documents served on June 12, 2013. Plata served his responses on September 18, 2013. After failing to resolve their dispute regarding the responses amongst themselves, Eureka filed a Motion to Compel. (ECF No. 29). After briefing, on January 7, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued an Order directing Plata:
[T]o provide full and complete answers to its interrogatories numbered 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 18, 19, 20, and 21. Plaintiff is further ordered to produce all of his medical records dating to the year 2000, all records reflecting attempts to find employment, and the complete files for any workers' compensation claims he filed against Eureka Locker or any other previous employer. Pro se Plaintiff to comply with this Order by 2/3/2014.
(TEXT ORDER dated 1/7/2014).
On March 12, 2014, Eureka filed its Motion for Sanctions and Memorandum in Support of its Motion asserting that Plata had failed to comply with the Magistrate Judge's TEXT ORDER dated 1/7/2014. (ECF Nos. 36 and 37).
In his Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge recommends that Eureka's Motion for Sanctions be allowed insofar as Plaintiff Luis Plata ("Plata") should be sanctioned under Rule 37 by being precluded from presenting evidence to support his claim that Eureka discriminated against him and other Hispanic employees by denying them first aid kits and gloves. (ECF No. 41 at 10). The Magistrate Judge further recommended that Eureka's Motion should be denied in all other respects. Id. Finally, the Magistrate Judge recommended that no costs should be assessed against Plata pursuant to Rule 37(a)(5)(C). Id. As noted above, no party has filed any objection to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation.
The Court would initially note that Plata's claims that have survived to this stage include:
Count I, Eureka Locker violated Title VII by:
(1) failing to provide Plata and other Hispanics with first aid kits and gloves to ...