United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
June 18, 2015
WILLIAM C. JESSUP, Plaintiff,
S.A. GODINEZ, and VICTOR DOZIER, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
MICHAEL J. REAGAN, Chief District Judge.
William Jessup (Plaintiff) filed this lawsuit in August 2013 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The case was transferred to this District, because the events at issue occurred while Plaintiff was confined at Vandalia Correctional Center, within this District. Now before the undersigned District Judge is a Report and Recommendation issued on May 29, 2015 by the Magistrate Judge assigned to this case, the Honorable Stephen C. Williams. The Report and Recommendation (R&R) recommends that the Court grant Defendants' May 18, 2015 motion for sanctions and dismiss this case based on Plaintiff's lack of prosecution.
A hearing was set on Defendants' motion (via teleconference scheduled for May 28, 2015). Plaintiff failed to appear for the telephonic hearing and never requested a continuance of the hearing or explained his failure to appear. The R&R sets forth the procedural history of the case, including Plaintiff's repeated postponement of his deposition, his failure to appear for his May 13, 2015 deposition, and the fact that Plaintiff was plainly warned that his failure to participate in/attend the May 28, 2015 telephonic hearing could result in the dismissal of his case. In the R&R, Judge Williams recommends that the undersigned dismiss this case with prejudice, based on Plaintiff's failure to participate in discovery and failure to actively prosecute the case.
In the R&R, Judge Williams (Doc. 41, p. 4) clearly stated that any objection to the R&R must be filed by June 15, 2015. That deadline elapsed, and no objection has been filed. Nor has Plaintiff sought an extension of the deadline to file objections. Therefore, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b), the undersigned need not conduct de novo review of the R&R. 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 ADOPTS Judge Williams' Report and Recommendation (Doc. 41), GRANTS Defendants' motion (Doc. 37), and DISMISSES this case with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Judgment shall be entered accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.