Grady v. Chrysler Group LLC

Filing 35

ORDER : Before the court is a report and recommendation ("R&R") from the magistrate judge recommending that this court deny plaintiff's motion to strike defendants' affirmative defenses 33 . The magistrate, at the September 18 , 2015 status hearing, noted that the motion to strike provides no grounds to strike the affirmative defenses and, instead, just contains a blanket denial of their applicability. Despite being given the opportunity, plaintiff has not objected to the magistrate judge's R&R. The court agrees with the magistrate judge that the motion does not provide a basis to strike defendants' affirmative defenses pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f). Accordingly, there being no written ob jection to the magistrate judge's R&R, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985), and the court having reviewed the record and the R&R, the court accepts the R&R and denies plaintiff's motion to strike 33 . Signed by the Honorable Frederick J. Kapala on 10/5/2015. Mailed notice (jp, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
Romero Grady,
Plaintiff,
v.
Chrysler Group LLC, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No: 15 C 50012

Judge Frederick J. Kapala

ORDER
Before the court is a report and recommendation (“R&R”) from the magistrate judge
recommending that this court deny plaintiff’s motion to strike defendants’ affirmative defenses
[33]. The magistrate, at the September 18, 2015 status hearing, noted that the motion to strike
provides no grounds to strike the affirmative defenses and, instead, just contains a blanket denial
of their applicability. Despite being given the opportunity, plaintiff has not objected to the
magistrate judge’s R&R. The court agrees with the magistrate judge that the motion does not
provide a basis to strike defendants’ affirmative defenses pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(f). Accordingly, there being no written objection to the magistrate judge’s R&R,
see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985),
and the court having reviewed the record and the R&R, the court accepts the R&R and denies
plaintiff’s motion to strike [33].

Date: 10/5/2015

ENTER:
_________________________
FREDERICK J. KAPALA
District Judge