Saddler v. Aldridge et al

Filing 34

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: The Court ADOPTS the 33 Report and Recommendations and GRANTS the 31 oral motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution. Thus, this case is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to prosecute. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge David R. Herndon on 9/12/2017. (lmp)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS DARIUS SADDLER, Plaintiff, v. ALDRIGE, et al., Defendants. No. 17-cv-0067-DRH MEMORANDUM and ORDER HERNDON, District Judge: Plaintiff Darrius Saddler brought this pro se action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1). According to the complaint, Saddler alleges that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his dental needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. On February 21, 2017, the Court conducted its preliminary review of the complaint and referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Williams (Doc. 9). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(B), Magistrate Williams submitted a Report and Recommendation (Athe Report@) on August 25, 2017 (Doc. 33). The Report recommends that the Court grant an oral motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution and dismiss this case with prejudice. Specifically, the Report found: “Plaintiff has shown no interest in prosecuting his suit as of late. He failed to appear for the two most recent hearings set by the Court. It is possible that Plaintiff has moved residences; however, if so, he has failed to file a Notice of Change of address Page 1 of 2 as required by the Court’s merits review order. Regardless, the notices for each hearing were viewable to the public, and both notices warned Plaintiff of the consequences for failing to appear. The threshold order also specifically indicated that failure to notify the Court of a change of address could result in a dismissal.” (Doc. 33, p. 3). The Report was sent to the parties with a notice informing them of their right to appeal by way of filing Aobjections@ within 14 days of service of the Report. To date, none of the parties has filed objections. The period in which to file objections has expired. Therefore, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b), this Court need not conduct de novo review. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-52 (1985). Based on the reasons outlined in the Report, the Court ADOPTS the Report (Doc. 33). The Court GRANTS the oral motion for lack of prosecution and DISMISSES with prejudice this case of action for failure to prosecute. Further, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to enter judgment in favor of defendants and against plaintiff. IT IS SO ORDERED. Judge Herndon 2017.09.12 16:02:46 -05'00' United States District Judge Page 2 of 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?