Yanez v. Long

Filing 52

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 46 as to 29 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution: As explained in the attached Order, the Court ADOPTS in its entirety Judge Williams' R&R (Doc. 46) and DENIES Defendant Long's motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution (Doc. 29). Signed by Judge Michael J. Reagan on 11/5/13. (soh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
JOSE LUIS YANEZ,
Plaintiff,
vs.
PHIL LONG,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 12-cv-0039-MJR-SCW

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
REAGAN, District Judge:
In January 2012, Jose Luis Yanez filed the above-captioned action in this Court, asserting
that he has been subjected to a pattern of discrimination while working for Unicor Prison Industries
at FCI-Greenville. The sole named Defendant was “P. Long, Superintendent of Prison Industries.”
The case survived threshold review in August 2012 and was referred to the Honorable Stephen C.
Williams, United States Magistrate Judge, for pretrial proceedings, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636 and
Local Rule 72.1.
In August 2013, Defendant Long (now identified as Phil Long, rather than just P. Long) 1
moved to dismiss the case based on Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute the action. Judge Williams held a
hearing on the motion, and Plaintiff participated via videoconference connection from FCI-Butner
II (where he currently is incarcerated). Now before the Court is a Report and Recommendation
(R&R) submitted by Judge Williams on October 18, 2013 (Doc. 46).

Based on Defendant’s various filings herein (e.g., Doc. 24, Doc. 29), the
Clerk’s Office shall correct the docket sheet to reflect Defendant’s name is Phil
Long.
1

Page 1 of 2

The R&R recommends that the undersigned DENY Defendant’s motion.

The R&R

notified the parties that they must file any objections to that recommendation “on or before
November 4, 2013” (Doc. 46, p. 9). That deadline has elapsed, and no objections were filed by any
party. Nor did any party seek an extension of the objection-filing deadline.
Accordingly, pursuant to U.S.C. 636(b), the undersigned Judge need not conduct de novo
review of the Report and Recommendations. 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(C) (“A judge of the court shall
make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings
or recommendations to which objection is made.”). See also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140
(1985); Johnson v. Zema Systems Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 741 (7th Cir. 1999); Video Views Inc., v.

Studio 21, Ltd., 797 F.2d 538 (7th Cir. 1986).
The Court hereby ADOPTS the R&R (Doc. 46) in its entirety. The Court DENIES
Defendant Long’s motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution (Doc. 29). The case remains set for
final pretrial conference before Judge Williams on October 30, 2014 and jury trial before the
undersigned District Judge on December 1, 2014. A dispositive motion deadline of March 3, 2014
also remains.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED November 5, 2013.
s/ Michael J. Reagan
Michael J. Reagan
United States District Judge

Page 2 of 2