Johnson v. Lappin et al

Filing 81

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ADOPTING 77 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS; Granting 76 Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Prosecution filed by Captain Harmon, D. Baning, M Gelios, Sara Revell, Petty, Harley G Lappin; Dismissing the remaining claims in this case with p rejudice; Denying as Moot 75 Motion to Take Deposition filed by Rasheen Johnson; Denying as Moot 80 Motion to Continue, Motion for Extension of Time filed by Captain Harmon, D. Baning, M Gelios, Sara Revell, Petty, Harley G Lappin. Clerk of Court to enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 6/28/11. (bkl)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
RASHEED JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 08-cv-730-JPG

HARLEY G. LAPPIN, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“Report”) (Doc.
77) of Magistrate Philip M. Frazier recommending that the Court grant the defendants’ second
motion to dismiss for want of prosecution (Doc. 76) and deny as moot plaintiff Rasheen
Johnson’s motion to take deposition (Doc. 75).
The Court may accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations of the magistrate judge in a report and recommendation. Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b)(3). The Court must review de novo the portions of the report to which objections are
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 Systems Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739
(7th Cir. 1999).
The Court has received no objection to the Report. The Court has reviewed the entire file
and finds that the Report is not clearly erroneous. Accordingly, the Court
•
ADOPTS the Report in its entirety (Doc. 77),
•

GRANTS the defendants’ second motion to dismiss for want of prosecution (Doc. 76);

•

DISMISSES the remaining claims in this case with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute;

•

DENIES as moot Johnson’s motion to take deposition (Doc. 75) and the defendants’

motion to continue the dispositive motion deadline and for additional time to depose
Johnson (Doc. 80); and
•

DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to enter judgment accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: June 28, 2011
s/ J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
DISTRICT JUDGE

2