Corwin v. Madison County Jail et al

Filing 35

ORDER ADOPTING 33 Report and Recommendation re 32 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution and Memorandum of Law in Support filed by Defendants Michael Hare, John Heck, and Nurse. Signed by Judge Staci M. Yandle on 8/25/15. (mah)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL CORWIN,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JOHN HECK, MICHAEL HARE, and
NURSE,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 15-CV-506-SMY-DGW

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
YANDLE, District Judge:
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson recommending dismissal of Plaintiff Christopher
Michael Corwin’s civil rights action for failure to prosecute. The Report and Recommendation
was entered on July 14, 2015. No objections have been filed. For the reasons stated below, the
Court adopts the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Wilkerson and dismisses this
case with prejudice.
BACKGROUND
On June 10, 2014, Plaintiff Christopher Michael Corwin filed this lawsuit alleging
deprivations on his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1). Specifically,
Plaintiff alleges violations of the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual
punishment related to his incarceration at the Madison County Jail. At the time Plaintiff initiated
this lawsuit, he was an inmate in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections. Plaintiff
was released from custody sometime after filing this lawsuit.

Page 1 of 3

Since December 4, 2014, at least five pieces of mail sent to Plaintiff by the Clerk’s Office
have been returned to the Court as undeliverable (Docs. 10, 14, 21, 28, and 29). To date,
Plaintiff has failed to inform the Court of his current address. On July 14, 2015, Magistrate
Judge Wilkerson entered the Report and Recommendation currently before the Court,
recommending that this matter be dismissed for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Objections to the Report and Recommendation were due on
July 31, 2015. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2); SDIL-LR 73.1(b). However,
Plaintiff did not file an objection by the deadline.
DISCUSSION
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 Magistrate Judge Wilkerson’s Report and
Recommendation and agrees with his conclusion that Plaintiff’s case should be dismissed for
failure to prosecute. Since filing this lawsuit in June 2014, Plaintiff has not taken any steps to
litigate this matter.

Indeed, the Court has not heard from him in over fourteen months.

Page 2 of 3

Plaintiff should not be permitted to continue to litigate this matter when he has shown an
obstinate refusal to comply with the Rules of this Court.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Wilkerson’s Report and
Recommendation (Doc. 33). This action is DISMISSED with prejudice. The Clerk is directed
to enter judgment accordingly and close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: August 25, 2015

s/ Staci M. Yandle
STACI M. YANDLE
United States District Judge

Page 3 of 3