Kalpedis v. City of Peoria et al
Filing
16
ORDER & OPINION Entered by Judge Joe Billy McDade on 1/11/2012. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss 12 is DENIED and the R&R 14 is ADOPTED. Plaintiff SHALL obtain alias summonses and effect proper service upon the two individual Defendants by February 9, 2012. This matter is referred to Judge Gorman for further pretrial proceedings, including the creation of a new schedule for this case's disposition. (RP, ilcd)
E-FILED
Thursday, 12 January, 2012 09:11:23 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
PEORIA DIVISION
CHRISTOPHER KALPEDIS,
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
CITY OF PEORIA, JOHN BRIGGS, and )
CHRIS WHITE,
)
)
Defendants.
)
Case No. 10-cv-1142
ORDER & OPINION
This matter is before the Court on Defendant City of Peoria’s Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint for lack of prosecution, and Judge Gorman’s
Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) on the same. (Docs. 12 & 14). For the reasons
stated below, the Motion to Dismiss is denied and the R&R is adopted.
As recounted more fully in Magistrate Judge Gorman’s R&R, Plaintiff filed
his initial Complaint on May 14, 2010, and was later given leave to file an Amended
Complaint, which he did on October 11, 2010. Magistrate Judge Gorman held a
Rule 16 conference on November 29, 2010, and set discovery to close on September
30, 2011. At the Rule 16 conference, Plaintiff agreed that he had not yet obtained
effective service on the two individual Defendants, and was given leave to do so.
Defendant City of Peoria filed the instant Motion to Dismiss for failure to prosecute
on November 2, 2011, as Plaintiff had failed to obtain service on the individual
Defendants, and had failed to undertake any further action in this case. (Doc. 12).
Plaintiff responded, explaining that after the Rule 16 conference, the case was
transferred to another attorney within the same firm, and was erroneously marked
with a notation indicating that the case was stayed. Magistrate Judge Gorman
reviewed the considerations surrounding a dismissal for failure to prosecute, and
determined that involuntary dismissal was inappropriate in this case. (Doc. 14). He
recommended that Plaintiff be directed to obtain service within a limited time
frame,1 and that the Court caution Plaintiff’s counsel against future failures to meet
deadlines in this matter. The Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Gorman’s
analysis and recommendations.
The parties were notified in the R&R that failure to timely object to
Magistrate Judge Gorman’s R&R would constitute a waiver of any objections. See
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Video Views, Inc. v. Studio 21, Ltd., 797 F.2d 538, 539
(7th Cir. 1986). Objections to the R&R were due by January 6, 2012, and none were
made. The Court therefore adopts the R&R in its entirety.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 12)
is DENIED and the R&R (Doc. 14) is ADOPTED. Plaintiff SHALL obtain alias
summonses and effect proper service upon the two individual Defendants by
February 9, 2012. This matter is referred to Judge Gorman for further pretrial
proceedings, including the creation of a new schedule for this case’s disposition.
Entered this 11th day of January, 2012.
s/ Joe B. McDade
JOE BILLY McDADE
United States Senior District Judge
Nothing in either the R&R or in this Order & Opinion should be taken as a
ruling or opinion on any defenses the individual Defendants may put forth when
they are properly served.
1
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?