Rollins v. Graphic Packaging et al

Filing 6

ORDER entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 12/26/2013. Accordingly, the Court now adopts the Report & Recommendation 5 of the Magistrate Judge in its entirety. This matter is DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. This Case is TERMINATED. See Full Written Order. (cc:plf)(JS, ilcd)

E-FILED

Thursday, 26 December, 2013 02:38:04 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
JAMES ROLLINS,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
GRAPHIC PACKAGING AND
UNITED STEEL WORKERS
LOCAL 188,
Defendant.

Case No. 13-1293

ORDER
On December 4, 2013, Magistrate Judge John Gorman issued his Report and
Recommendation recommending that this matter be dismissed for want of prosecution. (ECF
No. 5).

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 Plaintiff has failed to present timely objections,
any such objections have been waived.

Id.

The Court reviews the Magistrate Judge’s

recommendation for clear error. See Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir.
1999).
On July 28, 2013, Plaintiff James Rollins, pro se, filed this action for age and disability
discrimination. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff has taken no action to obtain service of process on the
Defendants. On October 30, 2013, over four months after the lawsuit was filed, an order was
entered directing the Plaintiff to: (1) serve summons or (2) prepare and send a notice of lawsuit
and request for waiver to each of the Defendants, within 21 days of the entry of the order. (ECF
No. 4). In granting the additional time, the Magistrate Judge specifically admonished Plaintiff

that the failure to take the necessary action may result in the dismissal of the case. Id. The
record is void of any action on the part of the Plaintiff. Furthermore, Plaintiff has not objected to
the Report and Recommendation.
Accordingly, the Court finds that this matter should be dismissed. The Court adopts the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation in its entirety. The Plaintiff’s lack of response
to the Court’s directive is a clear indication of his desire not to continue this matter. Plaintiff
was warned that the failure to take the necessary action would result in the dismissal of his case.
The Court finds that this matter should be dismissed for want of prosecution.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Court now adopts the Report & Recommendation (ECF No. 5) of the
Magistrate Judge in its entirety. This matter is DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION.
This Case is TERMINATED.
ENTERED this 26th day of December, 2013.
/s/ Michael M. Mihm
Michael M. Mihm
United States District Judge