Cardenas-Uriarte v. USA et al

Filing 99

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, The Court ADOPTS the R & R (Doc. 95 ) in part with regard to Defendants' motions for summary judgment and REJECTS that part of the R & R with regard to amended discovery responses. Defendant Bryson's Motion (Doc. 84 ) for Summary Judgment is GRANTED in part with regard to Count 3 and DENIED with regard to Counts 2 and 4. Count 3 and Defendant Bryson are DISMISSED without prejudice. Defendants C/O Howard and USA's Motion (Doc. 85 ) for Summary Judgment is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment in favor of Defendant Bryson at the conclusion of this matter. Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 6/13/2017. (jdh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
CIPRIANO CARDENAS-URIARTE,
Plaintiff,
vs.
USA, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 14-cv-00747-JPG-RJD

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the court on the Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) (Doc.
95) of Magistrate Reona J. Daly with regard to Defendant Bryson’s Motion (Doc. 84) for
Summary Judgment and Defendants C/O Howard and USA’s Motion (Doc. 85) for Summary
Judgment. On May 8, 2017, the defendants were granted an extension of time to file an
objection to the R & R. However, no objection was filed. The plaintiff also did not file an
objection. The time for filing an objection has expired for all parties and the Court has not
received an objection to the R & R.
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. The Court has discretion to conduct a new hearing and may consider the record before the
magistrate judge anew or receive any further evidence deemed necessary. Id. “If no objection or
only partial objection is made, the district court judge reviews those unobjected portions for clear
error.” Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999).
As stated above, the Court has received no objection to the R&R. The Court has
reviewed the entire file and finds that the R & R is not clearly erroneous with regard to the

defendants’ motions for summary judgment. However, the R & R makes a recommendation that
the Court allow the Plaintiff to amend his responses to defendants’ requests for admission. Such
leave to amend is not necessary. Plaintiff was allowed to supplement his responses upon
appointment of counsel (Doc. 73) and no further action is required.
Therefore, the Court hereby ADOPTS the R & R (Doc. 95) in part with regard to
Defendants’ motions for summary judgment and REJECTS that part of the R & R with regard
to amended discovery responses. As such, Defendant Bryson’s Motion (Doc. 84) for Summary
Judgment is GRANTED in part with regard to Count 3 and DENIED with regard to Counts 2
and 4. Count 3 and Defendant Bryson are DISMISSED without prejudice. Defendants C/O
Howard and USA’s Motion (Doc. 85) for Summary Judgment is DENIED.
The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment in favor of Defendant Bryson at the
conclusion of this matter.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: 6/13/2017
s/J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
DISTRICT JUDGE