Niccolls v. Sangamon County Sheriff's Office et al

Filing 24

ORDER entered by Judge Colin Stirling Bruce on 7/8/2024. United States Magistrate Judge Eric I. Long's June 20, 2024 Report and Recommendation 23 is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED by the Court. Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. T he Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment in all Defendants' favor and against Plaintiff. All other pending motions are denied as moot, and this case is terminated. All deadlines and settings on the Court's calendar are vacated. If he wishes to appeal this judgment, Plaintiff must file a notice of appeal with this Court within thirty (30) days of the entry of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4). If he wishes to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, Plaintiff's mo tion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis must identify the issues that he will present on appeal to assist the Court in determining whether the appeal is taken in good faith. If he chooses to appeal, Plaintiff will be liable for the $605.00 appellate filing fee regardless of the outcome of the appeal. See written order. (KE)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS JUSTIN NICCOLLS, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, v. SANGAMON COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, et al., Defendants. No.: 23-3210-CSB-EIL COLIN S. BRUCE: U.S. District Judge: This cause is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation entered by United States Magistrate Judge Eric I. Long, in which Magistrate Judge Long recommended that this Court dismiss this case. On June 20, 2024, United States Magistrate Judge Eric I. Long issued a Report and Recommendation that recommended that the Court dismiss this case for two reasons. First, Magistrate Judge Long determined that Plaintiff has not kept the Court informed of his current address, in writing, as required by Local Rule 16.3(K). Second, Magistrate Judge Long found that Plaintiff has failed to prosecute this case that he filed. Specifically, Magistrate Judge noted that Plaintiff has failed to attend several telephonic status conferences conducted by Magistrate Judge Long. Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Long recommended that the Court dismiss this case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41. 1 Plaintiff has not filed any objections to Magistrate Judge Long’s Report and Recommendation, and the time for him to do so under 28 U.S.C. § 636 and under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72 has passed. The Court has carefully conducted a de novo review of Magistrate Judge Long’s reasoning for recommending that this case be dismissed for lack of prosecution and for failure to comply with Local Rue 16.3(K), and the Court agrees with and accepts Magistrate Judge Long’s Report and Recommendation, including the imposition of the sanction of dismissal against Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s failure to comply with Local Rule 16.3(K) and his repeated failure to prosecute this case warrants the sanction of dismissal because it is clear that no other sanction is appropriate under the circumstances. Therefore, the Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Long that this case should be dismissed. IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED: 1. United States Magistrate Judge Eric I. Long’s June 20, 2024 Report and Recommendation [23] is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED by the Court. 2. Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment in all Defendants’ favor and against Plaintiff. All other pending motions are denied as moot, and this case is terminated. All deadlines and settings on the Court’s calendar are vacated. 3. If he wishes to appeal this judgment, Plaintiff must file a notice of appeal with this Court within thirty (30) days of the entry of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4). 2 4. If he wishes to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis must identify the issues that he will present on appeal to assist the Court in determining whether the appeal is taken in good faith. Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1)(c); Celske v. Edwards, 164 F.3d 396, 398 (7th Cir. 1999)(an appellant should be given an opportunity to submit a statement of his grounds for appealing so that the district judge “can make a responsible assessment of the issue of good faith.”); Walker v. O’Brien, 216 F.3d 626, 632 (7th Cir. 2000)(providing that a good faith appeal is an appeal that “a reasonable person could suppose . . . has some merit” from a legal perspective). 5. If he chooses to appeal, Plaintiff will be liable for the $605.00 appellate filing fee regardless of the outcome of the appeal. Entered this 8th day of July, 2024 _____ /s Colin S. Bruce____________________ COLIN S. BRUCE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?