Coe v. Brown et al

Filing 57

ORDER ADOPTING 56 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS; Granting 54 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution filed by Mary Rogers, Vipin Shah, Wexford Health Sources, Inc, Nancy Knope, Christine Brown. Signed by Judge Michael J. Reagan on 01/29/14. (dkd )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
ANDREW D. COE,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CHRISTINE BROWN, VIPIN SHAH,
MARY ROGERS, WEXFORD HEALTH
SOURCES, INC., and NANCY KNOPE,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 13–cv–0433–MJR–SCW

MEMORANDUM & ORDER
REAGAN, District Judge:
This § 1983 civil rights case comes before the Court on Defendants’ oral motion for Rule 41
dismissal for failure to prosecute. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(B) and (c), and Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 72(b), Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Williams submitted a Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”, Doc. 56) to the undersigned District Judge, in which he recommends the
Court adopt his findings of fact and conclusions of law and grant dismissal. Judge Williams
reasoned:
Plaintiff’s case should be dismissed for failure to prosecute because
he has shown a pattern of serious and repeated errors. This is not [a]
situation … where the plaintiff made a single error by failing to show
up at … one routine status conference. Here, Plaintiff has failed to
meet his obligations as a litigant and participate in discovery. When
Defendants complained of this conduct, Plaintiff failed to respond.
The Court issued an order requiring Plaintiff to be present at a
hearing to discuss the discovery dispute, which Plaintiff ignored.
Plaintiff was given specific warnings that his case would be subject to
dismissal should he fail to appear, and yet he continued to neglect his
case.
(Doc. 56, 2–3). The parties were informed that, should they fail to object to Judge Williams’ R&R,
they would waive the right to challenge it before either this Court or the Court of Appeals.
1

Following his blatant pattern of not meeting his litigation obligations, Plaintiff filed no
objection to Judge Williams’ R&R. The period in which such objections may be filed has expired, so
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) this Court need not conduct de novo review. T homas v. Arn ,
474 U.S. 140, 149–52 (1985); Banco Del Atlantico, S.A. v. Woods Indus. , 519 F.3d 350, 354 (7th
Cir. 2008); Video Views, Inc. v. Studio 21, Ltd. 797 F.2d 538, 539–40 (7th Cir. 1986).
Accordingly, the undersigned District Judge ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Williams’ Report
and Recommendation (Doc. 56) in its entirety and GRANTS (Doc. 54) Defendants’ oral motion to
dismiss.

The matter is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, and the Clerk of Court is

DIRECTED to close this case. See Lucien v. Brewer, 9 F.3d 26, 28 (7th Cir. 1993) (dismissal
is a “feeble sanction” if it is without prejudice; “Rule 41(b) states the general principle that
failure to prosecute a case should be punished by dismissal of the case with prejudice.”).

IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Michael J. Reagan
MICHAEL J. REAGAN
United States District Judge

DATE: January 29, 2014

2