Baker v. Hertz et al

Filing 71

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, The Court ADOPTS the Report in its entirety (Doc. 69 ); and DENIES Bakers motion for a preliminary injunction (Doc. 6 ). Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 12/17/2015. (jdh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
JEFFREY BAKER,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 15-cv-600-JPG-DGW

ROBERT HERTZ, JOHN LAKIN, GARY BOST,
DONALD BUNT, ROBERT HOLLENBACH,
RANDY YOUNG, LT. HILL, MIRAN
THOMPSON, SGT. DOVER, JODIE COLLMAN,
PAUL SARHAGE, STEVE RIDINGS, DONALD
McNAUGHTON, KENT GRIFFITH, TIM
WALKER, CRAIG RICHERT, MIKE TASSOME,
MIKE HARE, OFCR. MARK SPURGEON, BLAKE
SELLERS, MARK RYAN, MATT MILLER,
ROBERT BLANKENSHIP, MARTHA MAJOR,
ALICIA RUSHING, and VALERIE BASSETS,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“Report”) (Doc.
69) of Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson recommending that the Court deny plaintiff Jeffrey
Baker’s motion for a preliminary injunction (Doc. 6).
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.
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 Report. The Court has reviewed the entire file

and finds that the Report is not clearly erroneous.1 Accordingly, the Court hereby:


ADOPTS the Report in its entirety (Doc. 69); and



DENIES Baker’s motion for a preliminary injunction (Doc. 6).

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: December 17, 2015
s/ J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
DISTRICT JUDGE

1

The one exception is a typographical error on page 3 that refers to floods in 2017. It should refer to 2015.

2