United States District Court, C.D. Illinois, Springfield Division
MYERSCOUGH, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
10, 2019, Magistrate Judge Tom Schanzle-Haskins filed a
Report and Recommendation (d/e 35) recommending that this
Court deny the Motion for Reconsideration (d/e 27) filed by
Plaintiffs John Tenikat II and Sheryl Tenikat and grant the
Motion to Dismiss (d/e 28) filed by defendant City of Benld.
On May 23, 2019, Plaintiffs filed their Objection to the
Report and Recommendation (d/e 36). The City has filed a
response (d/e 37).
Objection is OVERRULED, and the Report and Recommendation
(d/e 19) is ACCEPTED. Plaintiffs have not stated a due
process claim, and the City is not subject to liability for
civil RICO claims. Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration
is DENIED, and the City's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(3), this Court
determines “de novo any part of the magistrate
judge's disposition that has been properly objected
to.” Although this Court does not need to conduct a new
hearing on the entire matter, the Court must give
“fresh consideration to those issues to which specific
objections have been made.” 12 Charles Alan Wright,
Arthur R. Miller, & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and
Procedure § 3070.2 (2d ed. 1997); Wasserman v.
Purdue Univ. ex rel. Jischke, 431 F.Supp.2d 911, 914
(N.D. Ind. 2006).
objection is made, or if only a partial objection is made,
the Court reviews the unobjected to portions for clear error.
Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th
Cir. 1999). This Court may “accept, reject, or modify
the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or
return the matter to the magistrate judge with
instructions.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3).
February 2018, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint (d/e 1) against
the City. Plaintiffs alleged that the City imposed defective
liens on Plaintiffs' property for payment of charges for
cutting an excessive growth of grass and weeds on the
property. Plaintiffs claimed, as is relevant here, that this
violated Plaintiffs' due process rights. Plaintiffs also
purported to bring a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Practices Act (RICO) claim pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
Plaintiffs filed the Complaint, a Complaint to Enforce Mowing
Lien filed by the City was pending in the Circuit Court of
the Seventh Judicial Circuit, Macoupin County, Illinois.
See State Court Documents (d/e 3). On February 4,
2019, the state court found the City lacked standing to bring
the action because the lien was defective and Plaintiffs were
not personally served with the Second Notice of Lien before
suit was filed. See State Court Order (d/e 17 at p.
12) (also awarding Plaintiffs $465 for filing fees and costs
and directing the City to release the mowing lien).
February 22, 2019, Magistrate Judge Schanzle-Haskins issued a
Report and Recommendation recommending dismissal of the due
process claim because Plaintiffs received due process in the
state court proceeding and prevailed. Report and
Recommendation at 5-6 (d/e 19). Judge Schanzle-Haskins did
not address Plaintiffs' RICO claim.
objected to the Report and Recommendation. On March 21, 2019,
this Court accepted the Report and Recommendation in part and
modified the Report in part. Opinion (d/e 25). This Court
accepted the recommendation to dismiss the due process claim.
This Court considered and dismissed the civil RICO claim
because municipalities are not liable for civil RICO claims
and Plaintiffs failed to allege injury to their business or
property. Nonetheless, the Court granted Plaintiffs leave to
replead the civil RICO claim and their state law Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act and Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Business Practices Act. Opinion at 8 (d/e 25).
April 2, 2019, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint (d/e 26)
naming as defendants 12 individuals, the City, and the law
firm that represented the City. Plaintiffs allege the
Defendants committed RICO violations by filing unperfected
liens in an effort to “extract monetary funds from the
plaintiffs.” Am. Compl. ¶ 11 (d/e 26).
April 16, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a motion (d/e 27) asking the
Court to reconsider the dismissal of their due process claim.
On April 17, 2019, the City filed a motion to dismiss (d/e
28) the RICO claim. To date, Plaintiffs have not served the
other Defendants named in the Amended Complaint with summons
and a copy of the Amended Complaint or secured waivers of
10, 2019, Magistrate Judge Schanzle-Haskins entered his
Report and Recommendation (d/e 35) (hereinafter, May Report
and Recommendation). Judge Schanzle-Haskins recommended that
this Court deny Plaintiffs' Motion to Reconsider because
they failed to demonstrate any manifest errors of law or fact
and presented no newly discovered evidence. ...