Gragg v. McDonald's Corporation

Filing 4

ORDER BY SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, U.S. District Judge: The Report and Recommendation (d/e 3 ) is ADOPTED in its entirety, with the caveat that Plaintiff's federal claims will be dismissed without, not with, prejudice. Plaintiff's Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees and Costs (d/e 2 ) is DENIED. Plaintiff's federal claims brought under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986 are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff's state-law claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. THIS CASE IS CLOSED. SEE WRITTEN ORDER. Entered on 6/22/2017. (MJC, ilcd)

E-FILED

Friday, 23 June, 2017 10:31:48 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
TRACEY M. GRAGG,
Plaintiff,
v.
MCDONALD’S CORPORATION,
KAREN JEFFERS, and CHRIS
JEFFERS,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 17-cv-03115

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 SchanzleHaskins (d/e 3). Judge Schanzle-Haskins recommends that this
Court (1) deny Plaintiff Tracey M. Gragg’s Application to Proceed in
District Court Without Prepaying Fees and Costs (d/e 2); (2)
dismiss, with prejudice, Plaintiff’s federal claims brought under 42
U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986; and (3) dismiss, without prejudice,
Plaintiff’s state-law claims.
The Report and Recommendation, which Judge SchanzleHaskins entered on May 1, 2017, noted that objections were due 14
Page 1 of 4 

days after service of the Report and Recommendation. Because the
Report and Recommendation was mailed to Plaintiff, she had until
May 18, 2017, to file objections. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d) (giving a
party served through the mail an additional three days to act). To
date, Plaintiff has filed no objections to the Report and
Recommendation.
With respect to the Report and Recommendation, this Court
“may 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. Id. “If 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).
In the Report and Recommendation, Judge Schanzle-Haskins
made several findings. First, Plaintiff failed to state a claim under
28 U.S.C. § 1983 in her Complaint for Violation of Constitutional
Page 2 of 4 

Rights (d/e 1) because Plaintiff did not allege that Defendants acted
under color of law. Second, Plaintiff failed to state a claim under 28
U.S.C. § 1985 because she failed to allege a conspiracy and, even if
she had, it would have been a conspiracy motivated by her
economic status, something the statute does not prohibit. See
United Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners of Am., Local 610, AFL-CIO v.
Scott, 463 U.S. 825, 837 (1983). Third, Plaintiff failed to state a
claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1986 because a violation of that statute
depends on a violation of 28 U.S.C. § 1985 and Plaintiff did not
state a claim under the latter statute.
After reviewing Plaintiff’s Complaint for Violation of
Constitutional Rights, the Report and Recommendation, and the
applicable law, this Court finds no clear error in the Report and
Recommendation.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
(1)

The Report and Recommendation (d/e 3) is ADOPTED

in its entirety, with the caveat that Plaintiff’s federal claims
will be dismissed without, not with, prejudice.
(2)

Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District Court

Without Prepaying Fees and Costs (d/e 2) is DENIED.
Page 3 of 4 

(3)

Plaintiff’s federal claims brought under 42 U.S.C. §§

1983, 1985, and 1986 are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
(4)

Plaintiff’s state-law claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE.
(5)

THIS CASE IS CLOSED.

ENTER: June 22, 2017.
/s/ Sue E. Myerscough
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 4 of 4