Hicks v. Hart

Filing 9

ORDER entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 7/14/2011 - Court now adopts the Report & Recommendation 8 of the Magistrate Judge in its entirety. Plaintiff Hicks' request to remand the case to state court, to the extent he makes such a request is DENIED. Defendant Hart's and the United States of America's Motion for Substitution of Defendant 6 is GRANTED. The United States of America is substatitued as the sole defendant in this case pursuant to 28 USC § 2679(d)(2). Hereinafter, the caption of the Complaint should name the Defendant as the United States of America. This matter is referred to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. cc: Pltf (SF, ilcd) Modified on 7/14/2011 to add cc: (SF, ilcd).

E-FILED

Thursday, 14 July, 2011 03:23:09 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
CHRISTOPHER M. HICKS,
Plaintiff,
v.
RAYMOND E. HART,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 11-1129

ORDER
On May 13, 2011, Defendant Raymond Hart and the United States of America filed a Motion
for Substitution of Defendant. More than fourteen (14) days have elapsed since the filing of the
Report & Recommendation, and no objections have been made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED.
R. CIV. P. 72(b); Lockert v. Faulkner, 843 F.2d 1015 (7th Cir. 1988); and Video Views, Inc. v. Studio
21, Ltd., 797 F.2d 538, 539 (7thCir. 1986). As the parties failed to present timely objections, any
such objections have been waived. Id.
The relevant procedural history is sufficiently referenced in the comprehensive Report &
Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. The Court concurs with the recommendation that Hicks’
request to remand this case to state court, to the extent he makes such a request, be denied. The
Court further concurs with the recommendation that the United States be substituted as a defendant
for Raymond Hart where the U.S. has certified that Hart acted within the scope of his employment
with the U.S. as Professor of Military, and where Hicks has not sufficiently bore the burden of
demonstrating that Hart was not acting within the scope of employment.
Accordingly, the Court now adopts the Report & Recommendation [#8] of the Magistrate
Judge in its entirety. Plaintiff Hick’s request to remand the case to state court, to the extent he
1

makes such a request, is DENIED. Defendant Hart’s and the United States of America’s Motion
for Substitution of Defendant [#6] is GRANTED. The United States of America is substituted as
the sole defendant in this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2679(d)(2). Hereinafter, the caption of the
Complaint should name the Defendant as the United States of America. This matter is referred to
the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.
ENTERED this 14th day of July, 2011.

s/ Michael M. Mihm
Michael M. Mihm
United States District Judge

2