Gillum v. Aramark Food Services, Inc. et al

Filing 49

ORDER: the Court ADOPTS the R & R (Doc. 47) and GRANTS Defendants Motion (Doc. 29). Defendants are DISMISSED without prejudice. Defendants Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 21) is DENIED as moot. Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 40) is DENIED as m oot. Defendants Motion to Substitute Affidavit (Doc. 43) is DENIED as moot. Plaintiffs Motion for Extension of Time to File Response (Doc. 48) is DENIED as moot. As no further claims remain pending, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close this case. Signed by Judge Staci M. Yandle on 6/2/15. (cmh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
CORTEZ D. GILLUM,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Case No. 14-cv-810-SMY-PMF

ARAMARK FOOD SERVICES, INC., et al,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) (Doc. 47) of
Magistrate Judge Philip M. Frazier recommending this Court grant Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for
Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies (Doc. 29).
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).
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. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the R & R (Doc. 47) and
GRANTS Defendants’ Motion (Doc. 29). Defendants are DISMISSED without prejudice. Defendants’
Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 21) is DENIED as moot. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc.
40) is DENIED as moot. Defendants’ Motion to Substitute Affidavit (Doc. 43) is DENIED as moot.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Response (Doc. 48) is DENIED as moot. As no further
claims remain pending, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: June 2, 2015

s/ Staci M. Yandle
STACI M. YANDLE
DISTRICT JUDGE