Karnes v. Sandusky

Filing 30

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS, ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Judge Michael J. Reagan on 04/27/2012. (dkd )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
GIASEMI N. KARNES,
Plaintiff,
v.
WILL SANDUSKY,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 11-CV-0087-MJR

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
REAGAN, District Judge:
On January 28, 2011, Giasemi Karnes filed a pro se complaint
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Will Sandusky, a Hamilton County,
Illinois, sheriff’s deputy. Karnes alleged that Sandusky used excessive force
against her and caused her bodily harm by tazing her three times in her
back.
On April 5, 2012, Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson
submitted a Report and Recommendation (“the Report”) pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), recommending that this action be dismissed for
failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the Court’s Orders (Doc. 27).
The Report’s recitation of the record in this matter shows a clear failure to
prosecute that amounts to abandonment of the case.
The Report finds that Karnes has not communicated with the
Court since December 19, 2011. At that time, despite her knowledge of the
December 19 scheduling hearing and her telephonic representations to the
1

Court that she was on her way to the hearing, she did not appear. The
Report also finds that Karnes failed to respond to the Court’s orders to show
cause, which directed her to respond in writing by a date certain (Docs. 19,
26), and she has not produced any discovery requested by Defendant
Sandusky (Docs. 25, 26).
The Report concludes that Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the
Court’s order to appear, failure to respond to the Court’s orders to show
cause and failure to cooperate in discovery indicate that she does not intend
to prosecute this matter and has abandoned this lawsuit.
The Report was sent to the parties with a notice informing them
of their right to appeal by way of filing “objections” within ten days of service
of the Report.

To date, neither party has filed objections.

The period in

Therefore, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

which to file objections has expired.

636(b), this Court need not conduct de novo review. Thomas v. Arn, 474
U.S. 140, 149-52 (1985).
Accordingly,

the

Court

ADOPTS

the

Report

and

Recommendation (Doc. 27) in its entirety and DISMISSES this action with
prejudice. See O'Rourke Bros. Inc. v. Nesbitt Burns, Inc. 201 F.3d
948, 950 (7th Cir. 2000), citing FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b) (Dismissal for a
failure to prosecute an action or to comply with court orders
operates as an adjudication upon the merits). This case is now closed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

2

DATED this 27th day of April, 2012

s/Michael J. Reagan
MICHAEL J. REAGAN
United States District Judge

3