Womack v. Cross et al

Filing 48

ORDER adopting 47 Report and Recommendation and DISMISSING CASE: As explained in the attached Order, the Court ADOPTS in its entirety Judge Williams' Report and Recommendation (Doc. 47) and DISMISSES this case with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). All deadlines/hearings/motions shall be cleared, and judgment shall be entered. See Order for details.Signed by Chief Judge Michael J. Reagan on 4/6/16. (soh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
RAY L. WOMACK,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JAMES CROSS, JR.,
FRANCIS THAYER,
BRUCE NEESE, and
JENNIFER BRAYE,
Defendants.

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

Case No. 15-cv-0543-MJR-SCW

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT & RECOMMENDATION
REAGAN, Chief Judge:
Plaintiff filed suit in this Court in May 2015, while incarcerated at FCI-Greenville,
within this Judicial District.

Plaintiff asserted federal constitutional claims under

Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971),
and federal statutes such as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), 442 U.S.C.
2000bb-1, et seq. On threshold review of the complaint in June 2015, the Court found
that Plaintiff had stated colorable claims under the First Amendment, RFRA, and the
Fifth Amendment (Counts 1 and 2). The Court ordered service on those claims (which
were directed against four Defendants – Cross, Thayer, Neese, and Braye) and
dismissed the remaining claims and Defendants.
The case comes now before the Court on a March 18, 2016 Report and
Recommendation (Doc. 47) submitted by the Honorable Stephen C. Williams, the
United States Magistrate Judge to whom the case is referred for pretrial proceedings.
1

Judge Williams recommends that the undersigned Chief District Judge dismiss this case
with prejudice for want of prosecution under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
The Report sets forth a pattern of inaction by Plaintiff, including failure to update his
address, failure to make initial disclosures, and failure to appear at a motion hearing of
which he had notice by certified mail (and for which he was given specific warning that
failure to appear could result in dismissal of his case).
Judge Williams set a deadline by which objections to the Report and
Recommendation must be filed. That deadline (April 4, 2016) elapsed, and (as of April
6, 2016) no objection has been filed. Accordingly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b), the
undersigned Judge need not conduct de novo review of the Report and
Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(C) (“A judge of the court shall make a de novo
determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or
recommendations to which objection is made.”). See also 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. 47) and
DISMISSES this case with prejudice under Rule 41(b) for lack of prosecution and
failure to follow Court Orders. Judgment shall be entered, and the case closed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED April 6, 2016.
s/ Michael J. Reagan
Michael J. Reagan
United States District Judge
2