Ibarro v. Henderson

Filing 34

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: For the reasons stated herein, the Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Williams' Report and Recommendations (Doc. [30}and GRANTS Defendant's motion to dismiss (Doc. 26 ). All settings, including the July 18, 2016 jury trial, are hereby CANCELLED. The Clerk of Court SHALL enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Chief Judge Michael J. Reagan on 8/31/15. (mea)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
JOSE ANGEL IBARRA,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
vs.
DR. HENDERSON,
Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-0395-MJR-SCW

MEMORANDUM & ORDER
This civil rights action was commenced by Plaintiff Ibarra in March 2014 while
incarcerated at Lawrence Correctional Center (Doc. 1). Since that time, the Plaintiff
submitted a notice, indicating he had been released from prison and provided a new
address (Doc. 19), but thereafter numerous documents have been returned undelivered.
No additional changes of address were filed. After several discovery documents were
returned, Defendant learned that the Plaintiff had been deported (Doc. 26-3) and filed a
motion to dismiss for want of prosecution on July 26, 2015 (Doc. 26). A hearing was set
on the motion, and Plaintiff was explicitly warned that a failure to appear could
potentially result in dismissal (Doc. 28).
On August 10, 2015, the Honorable Stephen C. Williams, United States
Magistrate Judge, conducted a hearing on Defendant’s pending motion. Plaintiff failed
to appear and has never filed a response to Defendant’s motion. Now before the Court

1|Page

is a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) filed by Magistrate Judge Williams at the
conclusion of the hearing (Doc. 30), detailing the above facts, and noting Plaintiff’s
multiple failures to prosecute (Id. at 1-2). Based upon these facts, the Magistrate Judge
recommended that dismissal was warranted under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
37(b) and 41(b) (Id. at 2). The parties had until August 27, 2015, to object to the R&R,
and that deadline has elapsed. No party filed any objections or requested an extension
of the objection-filing deadline. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), the undersigned District
Judge need not conduct de novo review of the R&R. 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. 30) in its entirety and GRANTS
Defendant’s motion to dismiss for want to prosecution (Doc. 26). All settings related to
this matter are hereby cancelled.

The Clerk of Court SHALL enter judgment

accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:

August 31, 2015
s/ Michael J. Reagan
Michael J. Reagan
Chief Judge
United States District Court
2|Page