United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
J. ROSENSTENGEL United States District Judge
matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation
of United States Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson (Doc.
39), which recommends granting Defendants’ Motion to
Dismiss (Doc. 36), denying as moot Defendants’ Motion
to Stay (Doc. 38), and dismissing this case with prejudice
pursuant to Rule 41(b).
Eugene Moore (“Moore”), a former inmate in the
Illinois Department of Corrections, filed this pro
se lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging
that his constitutional rights were violated while he was
incarcerated at Lawrence Correctional Center. After an
initial screening of Moore’s complaint pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915A, Moore was allowed to proceed on the
following counts against Defendants Gary Perkins, Randall
Bayler, Robert Boldrey, and Nurse Arbuckle:
Count One: Defendant Perkins applied excessive force to Moore
on August 30, 2013, in violation of Moore’s Eighth
Count Two: Defendants Boldrey and Bayler failed to protect
Moore from Defendant Perkin’s application of excessive
force, in violation of Moore’s Eighth Amendment rights.
Count Four: Defendant Nurse Arbuckle failed to provide
appropriate treatment for Moore’s injuries, in
violation of Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights.
Count Five: Defendant Perkins refused to provide Moore with
some of his mail, and did not provide Moore with some of his
meals, in violation of Moore’s First and Eighth
(Doc. 7, p. 2-5). On February 8, 2016, Defendants Bayler,
Boldrey and Perkins filed a motion to compel, asking the
Court to compel Moore to respond to Defendants’ first
set of interrogatories and requests for production of
documents related to the issue of exhaustion of
administrative remedies (Doc. 29). On March 23, 2016,
Magistrate Judge Donald Wilkerson granted Defendants’
motion to compel and ordered Moore to respond to
Defendants’ written discovery requests by April 8, 2016
(Doc. 31). Magistrate Judge Wilkerson warned Moore
“that his failure to provide said responses may result
in dismissal of this lawsuit for failure to prosecute”
5, 2016, Defendants Bayler, Boldrey, and Perkins filed a
Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 36) asserting that the case should be
dismissed due to Moore’s failure to prosecute this
action and comply with the Court’s order. Defendants
Bayler, Boldrey, and Perkins aver that Moore has failed to
respond to their written discovery requests, despite being
ordered by Magistrate Judge Wilkerson to do so. Moore did not
file a response in opposition to Defendants’ motion.
Defendants Bayler, Boldrey, and Perkins also filed a Motion
to Stay Discovery (Doc. 38) pending a ruling on the Motion to
13, 2016, Magistrate Judge Wilkerson issued the Report and
Recommendation currently before the Court (Doc. 39),
recommending dismissal of the case for failure to prosecute
pursuant to Rule 41(b). Objections to the Report and
Recommendation were due on or before August 1, 2016.
See 28 U.S.C. § 626(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P.
72(b)(2); SDIL-LR73.1(b). Moore did not file an objection.
timely objections are filed, this Court must undertake a
de novo review of the Report and Recommendation. 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), (C); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); SDIL-LR
73.1(b); Harper v. City of Chicago Heights, 824
F.Supp. 786, 788 (N.D. Ill. 1993); see also Govas v.
Chalmers, 965 F.2d 298, 301 (7th Cir. 1992). Where
neither timely nor specific objections to the Report and
Recommendation are made, however, this Court need not conduct
a de novo review of the Report and Recommendation.
See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Instead, the
Court should review the Report and Recommendation for clear
error. Johnson v. Zema Systems Corp., 170 F.3d 734,
739 (7th Cir. 1999). A judge may then “accept, reject,
or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Wilkerson’s Report
and Recommendation for clear error. Following this review,
the Court fully agrees with the findings, analysis, and
conclusions of Magistrate Judge Wilkerson. Moore has failed
to provide discovery responses despite Magistrate Judge
Wilkerson’s order to do so and despite being warned
that such failure may result in dismissal of the lawsuit.
Moore has also failed to respond to Defendants’ motion
to dismiss and has failed to object to Magistrate Judge
Wilkerson’s Report and Recommendation recommending
dismissal. It appears that Moore has lost interest in
litigating this case and this case should be dismissed for
failure to prosecute pursuant. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS
Magistrate Judge Wilkerson’s Report and Recommendation
(Doc. 39) in its entirety, GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to
Dismiss (Doc. 36), and DENIES as moot Defendants’
Motion to Stay (Doc. 38). This case is DISMISSED with
prejudice for failure to prosecute pursuant to Rule 41(b).
Judgment will be entered accordingly.