Grimont v. Alton and Southern Railway Co.

Filing 13

ORDER ADOPTING 12 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 1 Complaint filed by Nicholas R. Grimont. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to Rules 41(b) and 4(m) for failure to prosecute and for failure to obtain timely service of process. Signed by Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel on 6/6/17. (klh2)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
NICHOLAS R. GRIMONT,
Plaintiff,
vs.
ALTON AND SOUTHERN RAILWAY
CO.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 16-CV-1395-NJR-SCW

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ROSENSTENGEL, District Judge:
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of United
States Magistrate Judge Stephen Williams (Doc. 12), which recommends dismissing this
action without prejudice.
Plaintiff Nicholas Grimont filed this lawsuit against Defendant Alton and Southern
Railway Co. on December 28, 2016 (Doc. 1). Shortly thereafter, his attorney moved to
withdraw because she was unable to reach her client (Doc. 7). Plaintiff did not respond to
the motion or appear at the hearing on the motion (Doc. 9). He also did not follow

Magistrate Judge Williams’s Order to retain new counsel or notify the Court of his
intent to proceed pro se (see Doc. 9). And he also failed to appear at a status conference,
despite being warned that such failure may result in the dismissal of the case (Doc. 10).
Furthermore, well over ninety days have elapsed since the complaint was filed, and
Defendant still has not been served. See FED. R. CIV. P. 4(m).

Page 1 of 2

Consequently,

Magistrate

Judge

Williams

issued

the

Report

and

Recommendation that is currently before the Court and recommended the dismissal of
this action without prejudice due to Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this action and failure
to obtain service of process within the time prescribed by Rule 4(m) (Doc. 12).
Objections to the Report and Recommendation were due on June 2, 2017 (Doc. 12). See
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(2); SDIL-LR 73.1(b). No objections were filed.
Where neither timely nor specific objections to the Report and Recommendation
are made, the court need not conduct a de novo review. 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). The court 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 undersigned has reviewed Magistrate Judge Williams’s Report and
Recommendation, as well as the procedural history of this case, and fully agrees with
the findings, analysis, and conclusions of Magistrate Judge Williams. Accordingly, the
Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 12) in its entirety. This action is
DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to Rules 41(b) and 4(m) for failure to
prosecute and for failure to obtain timely service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: June 6, 2017
____________________________
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
United States District Judge

Page 2 of 2