Wilson v. Mattoon Towers Apartments et al

Filing 38

ORDER entered by Judge Colin Stirling Bruce on 01/07/2025: IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT : (1) The Report and Recommendation (#36) is accepted by this court. (2) Defendant Mattoon Police Department's Motion to Dismiss for Want ofProsecution (#31) is GRANTED. (3) This case is terminated. SEE WRITTEN ORDER.(SB)

E-FILED

Tuesday, 07 January, 2025 03:30:44 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
URBANA DIVISION
SHERYL WILSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
MATTOON TOWERS APARTMENTS,
et al.,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 23-CV-2216

Defendants.
ORDER

On October 2, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendants Mattoon
Police Department (“MPD”), Mattoon Towers Apartments, Mel Rocket, and Promex
Midwest Corporation. The claims against Mattoon Towers and Promex have been
dismissed for want of prosecution (#15), while the claims against Rocket were
dismissed pursuant to stipulation between the parties. The MPD is the only remaining
defendant.
The MPD filed a Motion to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution (#31) on November
19, 2024. Plaintiff filed no response.
On December 19, 2024, Magistrate Judge Eric I. Long entered a Report and
Recommendation (#36), recommending that this court grant the MPD’s Motion.
Therein, Judge Long observed that “Plaintiff has taken no steps to pursue this litigation
since she filed her Complaint over one year ago.” Indeed, all mail sent to Plaintiff since

February 27, 2024, has been returned as undeliverable, and attempts to call Plaintiff at
the telephone number listed on the court’s docket have resulted in an error message
after two rings. As Judge Long pointed out, Plaintiff’s pro se form Complaint included a
section stating: “I agree to provide the Clerk’s Office with any changes to my address
where case-related papers may be served. I understand that my failure to keep a current
address on file with the Clerk’s Office may result in the dismissal of my case.”
In his Report and Recommendation, Judge Long admonished the parties that any
objection to the recommendation must be filed in writing with the Clerk within 14 days
of service, and that the failure to object would constitute a waiver of objections on
appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Video Views, Inc. v. Studio 21, Ltd., 797 F.2d 538, 539 (7th
Cir. 1986).
The time to object to Judge Long’s Report and Recommendation has passed, and
neither party filed an objection. Therefore, following this court’s de novo review of the
Report and Recommendation and the reasons for it, this court agrees with and accepts
Judge Long’s Report and Recommendation (#36). This court agrees that Plaintiff’s
claims against the MPD should be dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute the
matter.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
(1) The Report and Recommendation (#36) is accepted by this court.
(2) Defendant Mattoon Police Department’s Motion to Dismiss for Want of
Prosecution (#31) is GRANTED.
(3) This case is terminated.
2

ENTERED this 7th day of January , 2025.
s/Colin Stirling Bruce
COLIN S. BRUCE
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

3