Dunigan v. Coffey et al

Filing 40

ORDER ADOPTING 39 Report and Recommendations and GRANTING 34 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution. This action is DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel on 9/17/2018. (klh2)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
GREG DUNIGAN,
Plaintiff,
vs.
MELISSA COFFEY and
ANGELA GROTT,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 15-CV-1214-NJR-DGW

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ROSENSTENGEL, District Judge:
Plaintiff Greg Dunigan filed this pro se lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
against various prison officials for violating his constitutional rights while he was an
inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections housed at Menard Correctional Center
(Doc. 1). 1 Dunigan was permitted to proceed on one limited claim that Defendants
Melissa Coffey and Angela Grott retaliated against him by withholding legal
documents and bringing false disciplinary charges against him (Doc. 16). The case is
currently before the Court on a Report and Recommendation entered by Magistrate
Judge Donald G. Wilkerson on August 24, 2018 (Doc. 39).
In the Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Wilkerson recommends
granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution (Doc. 34). In a nutshell,
Dunigan has failed to inform the Court and Defendants of his current address in a
timely manner and failed to appear at a noticed deposition. He also failed to respond to

1

Dunigan was released from prison shortly after he filed this lawsuit (see Doc. 8).

Page 1 of 2

Defendants’ motion to dismiss despite a warning from the Court that his case would be
dismissed if he did not respond (Doc. 38). Finally, Dunigan did not file an objection by
the deadline to Magistrate Judge Wilkerson’s recommendation that this case be
dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute (Doc. 39).
Because no party has filed an objection, the undersigned need not undertake de
novo review. 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.”) (emphasis added). See also Thomas v. Arn,
474 U.S. 140 (1985); Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 741 (7th Cir. 1999); Video
Views, Inc. v. Studio 21, Ltd., 797 F.2d 538 (7th Cir. 1986).
The undersigned accordingly ADOPTS in its entirety Magistrate Judge
Wilkerson’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 39). The Motion to Dismiss for Lack of
Prosecution (Doc. 34) is GRANTED. This action is DISMISSED with prejudice
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to
enter judgment accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: September 17, 2018
____________________________
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
United States District Judge

Page 2 of 2