Widmer v. Butler et al

Filing 34

ORDER ADOPTING 33 Report and Recommendations. This case is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the Court's orders. Signed by Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel on 4/23/15. (klh2)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
MICHAEL WIDMER,
Plaintiff,
vs.
MARC HODGE, CHAD JENNINGS,
GREGG BROOKS, and
JEFF STRUBHART,
Defendants,
vs.
J KEMPFER, C/O DAVIS, C/O
LINDBERG, and SHURTZ
Defendants,
vs.
J WIDMER,
Defendant,
vs.
KIMBERLY BUTLER, R PELKER,
OFFICER LINDENBERG, and T MEZO
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 13-CV-788-NJR-DGW

Case No. 13-CV-1131-NJR-DGW

Case No. 13-CV-1246-NJR-DGW

Case No. 14-CV-859-NJR-DGW

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ROSENSTENGEL, District Judge:
Currently before the Court are four Reports and Recommendations of United
States Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson recommending the dismissal of Plaintiff

Page 1 of 5

Michael Widmer’s four civil rights cases that are pending in front of the undersigned:
13-cv-788, 13-cv-1131, 13-cv-1246, 14-cv-1859.
At the time Widmer filed each of his civil rights cases, he was an inmate in the
custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections. On or around December 3, 2014,
Widmer filed a motion in three of the four cases asking for a temporary stay pending a
status hearing.1 He indicated that all of his documents had been seized, and he was
unable to effectively communicate with defense counsel. He asked the Court to set a
status hearing prior to December 26, 2014, which is when he was set to be released from
the IDOC.
Magistrate Judge Wilkerson granted Widmer’s requests to stay his cases, but was
unable to accommodate his request for hearing before December 26 on such short notice.
Instead, Magistrate Judge Wilkerson set each of the four cases for an in-person status
conference on February 18, 2015.2 The Orders warned Widmer that his failure to attend
the status conference would result in a recommendation that the matters be dismissed
for failure to prosecute. The Orders were entered on December 11, 2014, while Widmer
was still incarcerated at Menard Correctional Center.
Widmer was released from custody in December 2014. He filed a notice of change
of address with the Court on January 14, 2015, indicating that he had moved to

13-cv-788—Widmer did not file a motion to stay in this case.
13-cv-1131 at Doc. 83
13-cv-1246 at Doc. 27
14-cv-1859 at Doc. 26
2 13-cv-788 at Doc. 66
13-cv-1131 at Doc. 84
13-cv-1246 at Doc. 28
14-cv-1859 at Doc. 27
1

Page 2 of 5

Bloomington, Illinois.3 He did not inquire as to whether there had been any recent
activity in any of his cases, nor did he inform the Court that he had not received any
documents. About a week later, the Clerk of Court mailed an order in case 14-cv-859 to
Widmer at his new address (14-cv-859, Doc. 30). That order, in part, gave Widmer notice
for a second time that a status hearing was set for February 18, 2015.4
Widmer failed to appear at the hearing on February 18, and he did not submit
anything in any of his four cases explaining his failure.5 On March 6, 2015, Magistrate
Judge Wilkerson entered the four Reports and Recommendations and recommended
that each case be dismissed for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure.6 Each Report and Recommendation was mailed to Widmer at the
address in Bloomington, Illinois. Objections to the Reports and Recommendations were
due on March 23, 3015. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(2); SDIL-LR 73.1(b).
But Widmer did not file an objection by the deadline.
13-cv-788 at Doc. 67
13-cv-1131 at Doc. 85
13-cv-1246 at Doc. 29
14-cv-1859 at Doc. 28
4 The order read:
ORDER GRANTING 29 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Motion for Summary Judgment on
Issue of Exhaustion filed by T Mezo, R Pelker, Lindenberg, Kimberly Butler. Dispositive Motions
re Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies due by February 18, 2015. Pavey Evidentiary Hearing
set for February 18, 2015 is hereby CANCELLED and will be RESET, if necessary, at the Status
Conference to be held February 18, 2015. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson on
1/23/2015. (nms) THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER
DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED. (Entered: 01/23/2015).
5
On February 23, 2015, Widmer apparently informed someone in the Clerk of Court’s office that
he did not know about the hearing because he did not receive documents from the Court while
he was incarcerated at the Menard Correctional Center. But as explained above, he also received
notice of the hearing at his address in Bloomington.
6
13-cv-788 at Doc. 70
13-cv-1131 at Doc. 88
13-cv-1246 at Doc. 32
14-cv-1859 at Doc. 33
3

Page 3 of 5

Where timely objections are filed, this Court must undertake a de novo review of
the Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), (C); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b);
SDIL-LR 73.1(b); Harper v. City of Chicago Heights, 824 F. Supp. 786, 788 (N.D. Ill. 1993); see
also Govas v. Chalmers, 965 F.2d 298, 301 (7th Cir. 1992). Where neither timely nor specific
objections to the Report and Recommendation are made, however, this Court need not
conduct a de novo review of the Report and Recommendation. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S.
140 (1985). Instead, the Court should review the Report and Recommendation for clear
error. Johnson v. Zema Systems Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999). A judge may then
“accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by
the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The Court has carefully reviewed each of Magistrate Judge Wilkerson’s Reports
and Recommendations and agrees with his conclusion that Widmer’s cases should be
dismissed for failure to prosecute. Widmer took no initiative to inform the Court why he
missed status conference. He also failed to respond to written discovery in case 13-1131,
and he failed to appear for his deposition for a second time in case 13-cv-788. After the
Court informed him that his cases would be dismissed for failure to prosecute, he did
not object within the allotted timeframe. Simply put, Widmer has not given the Court
any indication that he is still interested in pursuing his cases. Neither Magistrate Judge
Wilkerson nor the undersigned has heard from him in over three months.
Accordingly, the Court finds that Widmer has failed to comply with its orders
and failed to prosecute this matter. Each of Magistrate Judge Wilkerson’s four Reports
and Recommendations are ADOPTED (13-cv-788 at Doc. 70; 13-cv-1131 at Doc. 88;

Page 4 of 5

13-cv-1246 at Doc. 32; 14-cv-1859 at Doc. 33). Widmer’s cases pending in front of the
undersigned—13-cv-788, 13-cv-1131, 13-cv-1246, and 14-cv-859—are DISMISSED with
prejudice. FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b); see generally James v. McDonald’s Corp., 417 F.3d 672, 681
(7th Cir. 2005). The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment in each case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: April 23, 2015
s/ Nancy J. Rosenstengel
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
United States District Judge

Page 5 of 5