Anderson v. City Of Rockford et al.

Filing 68

ORDER: Before the court is a report and recommendation ("R&R") from the magistrate judge 63 recommending denial of the parties' agreed motion to consolidate 57 this case with case number 15 C 50064 for the purposes of discovery and pretrial matters only. The magistrate judge recommends denying the agreed motion, as the cases have already been consolidated for the purposes of discovery and the only benefit to the parties' motion would be to reduce the number of plead ings filed by the parties, but those pleadings would eventually lead to greater confusion when the court would unconsolidate the cases for trial. The magistrate judge also recommends that the denial be without prejudice, should the parties later d ecide to consolidate the cases in a more substantive way. Despite being given an opportunity, no party objects to the R&R. Without belaboring the point, the court agrees with and adopts the magistrate judge's analysis. Accordingly, there bein g no written objection to the 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 R&R, the court accepts the R&R 63 and denies the motion to consolidate 57 without prejudice. Signed by the Honorable Frederick J. Kapala on 2/24/2016:mailed notice(pg, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
Tyjuan Anderson,
Plaintiff,
v.
City of Rockford, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No: 15 C 50065

Judge Frederick J. Kapala

ORDER
Before the court is a report and recommendation (“R&R”) from the magistrate judge [63]
recommending denial of the parties’ agreed motion to consolidate [57] this case with case number
15 C 50064 for the purposes of discovery and pretrial matters only. The magistrate judge
recommends denying the agreed motion, as the cases have already been consolidated for the
purposes of discovery and the only benefit to the parties’ motion would be to reduce the number
of pleadings filed by the parties, but those pleadings would eventually lead to greater confusion
when the court would unconsolidate the cases for trial. The magistrate judge also recommends
that the denial be without prejudice, should the parties later decide to consolidate the cases in a
more substantive way. Despite being given an opportunity, no party objects to the R&R. Without
belaboring the point, the court agrees with and adopts the magistrate judge’s analysis.
Accordingly, there being no written objection to the 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 R&R,
the court accepts the R&R [63] and denies the motion to consolidate [57] without prejudice.

Date: 2/24/2016

ENTER:
_________________________
FREDERICK J. KAPALA
District Judge