Beckom v. Illinois Department of Transportation

Filing 41

ORDER: (1) The Report and Recommendation (d/e 40 ) is ADOPTEDin its entirety. (2) The case is DISMISSED as a sanction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 for failure to respond to discovery requests. (3) Defendants are DIRECTED to file, if the y so choose, a detailed list of expenses and attorney fees incurred as a result of Plaintiff's failure to cooperate in discovery, on or before December 31, 2015. (4) Plaintiff is DIRECTED to respond to Defendants' filing, if he so chooses, explaining why an award of such expenses and fees would be unjust, on or before January 15, 2016. THIS CASE IS CLOSED. (SEE WRITTEN ORDER). Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 12/17/2015. (ME, ilcd)

E-FILED

Monday, 21 December, 2015 04:36:40 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
LAWRENCE BECKOM,
Plaintiff,
v.
ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION, et al,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 14-cv-3227

ORDER
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, U.S. District Judge:
This matter comes before the Court on the Report and
Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Tom
Schanzle-Haskins (d/e 40). Judge Schanzle-Haskins recommends
that this Court dismiss this case as a sanction under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 37 for failure to respond to discovery requests.
Judge Schanzle-Haskins further recommends that Plaintiff be given
an opportunity to respond to demonstrate why an award of expenses
and fees would be unjust, and that Defendants provide a detailed list
of expenses and attorney fees incurred as a result of Plaintiff’s failure
to cooperate in discovery.
Page 1 of 3

Objections to the Report and Recommendation were due on or
before December 10, 2015. No party has filed any objection.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(3), the Court
Amay 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). The Court reviews de novo
any part of the Report and Recommendation to which a proper
objection has been made. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). AIf no objection
or only partial objection is made, the district court judge reviews
those unobjected portions for clear error.@ Johnson v. Zema Sys.
Corp., 170 F. 3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999) (also noting that a party
who fails to object to the report and recommendation waives
appellate review of the factual and legal questions).
After reviewing the record, the Report and Recommendation,
and the applicable law, this Court finds no clear error.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
(1)

The Report and Recommendation (d/e 40) is ADOPTED

in its entirety.

Page 2 of 3

(2)

The case is DISMISSED as a sanction under Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 37 for failure to respond to discovery
requests.
(3)

Defendants are DIRECTED to file, if they so choose, a

detailed list of expenses and attorney fees incurred as a result of
Plaintiff’s failure to cooperate in discovery, on or before
December 31, 2015.
(4)

Plaintiff is DIRECTED to respond to Defendants’ filing,

if he so chooses, explaining why an award of such expenses and
fees would be unjust, on or before January 15, 2016.
THIS CASE IS CLOSED.
ENTERED: November 17, 2015
FOR THE COURT:
s/ Sue E. Myerscough
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 3 of 3