United States District Court, Central District of Illinois, Peoria Division
SARA DARROW, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 15, recommending that Plaintiff’s Complaint, ECF No. 1, be dismissed as to Defendants Richard Stewart, Lori Cheek, Michelle Devos, Meredith Farley, Lynda Sharp-Lower, and Lorry Anderson, without prejudice, for want of prosecution. For the following reasons, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation and dismisses without prejudice Plaintiff’s claims against these Defendants.
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 disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” Id. More than 14 days have elapsed since the filing of the Report and Recommendation in this case, and no objections have issued from any party. As the parties have failed to present timely objections, any such objections have been waived. See id.; 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Lorentzen v. Anderson Pest Control, 64 F.3d 327, 330 (7th Cir. 1995). The Court thus reviews the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation for clear error. Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) directs that a plaintiff must serve a defendant within 120 days of filing the complaint. The Magistrate Judge explains that the Complaint was filed, and that summons was issued to all of the named Defendants and forwarded to the Marshals for service—but that the summonses sent to Defendants Stewart, Cheek, Devos, Farley, Sharp-Lower, and Anderson all were returned unexecuted. Report and Rec. 1. On April 21, 2014, the Magistrate Judge entered a Text Order noting the Marshals’ unsuccessful attempts at serving the individual Defendants listed above. The Text Order also warned Plaintiff that those individual Defendants could be dismissed from the case for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) if he did not inform the Court of those individual Defendants’ current, correct addresses by May 5, 2014. See Apr. 21, 2014 Text Order. To date, Plaintiff has filed nothing with the Court regarding the individual Defendants’ current, correct addresses, and the 120-day deadline has long since passed. Report and Rec. 2. The Magistrate Judge now recommends that Defendants Stewart, Cheek, Devos, Farley, Sharp-Lower, and Anderson be dismissed. The Court agrees.
Accordingly, this Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Stewart, Cheek, Devos, Farley, Sharp-Lower, and Anderson are ...