Rayford v. Childers et al

Filing 91

ORDER: The Court ADOPTS Judge Williams' Report and Recommendation (Doc. 89 ) in its entirety and DISMISSES all remaining claims herein with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Judgment shall be entered accordingly. Signed by Chief Judge Michael J. Reagan on 12/12/16. (rah)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
JAMIL M. RAYFORD,
Plaintiff,
vs.
TERRY CHILDERS,
MICHAEL DEAN,
DEREK HUNDLEY,
CHRIS CALES,
MATT WINKA,
DARRELL SELBY,
CHRIS BRANT,
ERIC ADAMSON,
ROBERT KIDWELL,
ALAN DALLAS,
COUNSELOR COLLIN RAY,
DEREK JOHNSON,
Defendants.

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

Case No. 14-cv-1290-MJR-SCW

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
REAGAN, Chief Judge:
Jamil Rayford filed this prisoner civil rights suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging
violation of his federally-secured constitutional rights following a series of assaults and
retaliatory actions at Lawrence Correctional Center. In November 2014, Rayford was
transferred to Pontiac Correctional Center and notified the Court of his change of
address (Doc. 7). That is the last known address he provided to the Court. Pursuant to
an April 2015 Scheduling Order (Doc. 46), the case is set for final pretrial conference on
January 25, 2017 and jury trial on March 13, 2017.

1

The case is now before the Court on a Report and Recommendation (R&R) issued
by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Williams on November 18, 2016 (Doc. 89), which
recommends that the undersigned dismiss this case with prejudice based on Plaintiff’s
failure to prosecute.
The R&R notes the following. In the Court’s threshold review Order (which
dismissed Defendant Illinois Department of Corrections and clarified the claims which
could proceed against the remaining named Defendants), the undersigned District
Judge advised Rayford of his obligation to keep the Court apprised of any change in his
address. That requirement is also contained in the Local Rules of this District. In
October 2016, Judge Williams learned that Rayford had been released from prison and
was on parole. Judge Williams set a status conference on November 16, 2016, gave
Plaintiff the option to call in or appear in person, and plainly instructed Rayford that his
failure to appear (by phone or in person) could result in dismissal of his case or other
sanctions. Rayford did not appear and has not filed any change of address notice.
Counsel for Defendants moved to dismiss the case based on Plaintiff’s want of
prosecution.
In the R&R, Judge Williams recommends that the undersigned grant Defendants’
oral motion and dismiss all remaining claims in this case with prejudice for failure to
prosecute. Given Plaintiff’s failure to appear at the status conference and failure to
update his address with the Court or otherwise participate in this action since his

2

release on parole, dismissal of this case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) is
warranted.
In the R&R, Judge Williams clearly stated that any objection to the R&R must be
filed by December 5, 2016. That deadline elapsed, and no objection has been filed. Nor
has Plaintiff sought an extension of the deadline to file an objection. The undersigned
need not conduct de novo review of the R&R. 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(C)(“A judge … shall
make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed
findings or recommendations to which objection is made.”); 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 ADOPTS Judge Williams’ Report and Recommendation (Doc. 89) in
its entirety and DISMISSES all remaining claims herein with prejudice under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Judgment shall be entered accordingly.1
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: December 12, 2016.
s/ Michael J. Reagan
Michael J. Reagan
United States District Judge

Pleadings filed by defense counsel clarified the full names of several named Defendants herein.
For instance, the defendant named as “C/O Dean” is Michael Dean, etc. The Clerk’s Office shall correct
the docket sheet to reflect those clarifications (using the names listed in the caption/style above).
11

3