Williams v. USA et al

Filing 49

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, The Court ADOPTS the Report in its entirety (Doc. 43 ) GRANTS defendants Bagwell's and Harvey's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 28 ), DENIES plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 39 ), DENIES plaintiff's motion for an extension of time (Docs. 44 , 46 ), DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to terminate M. Bagwell and Paul Harvey as defendants in this case. Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 3/2/2018. (jdh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SHAUN WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 3:17-cv-00153-JPG-SCW

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et. al,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
J. PHIL GILBERT, DISTRICT JUDGE
This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“Report”) (Doc.
43) of Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Williams regarding the cross-motions for summary judgment
in this case. (Docs. 28, 39.) 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).
Here, the Court has received no objection to the Report. Plaintiff filed a motion that
asked (1) the Court to appoint him counsel, and (2) for an extension of time to file an objection
to the Report, but his request for the extension of time was predicated on whether the Court
would appoint him counsel. Specifically, he requested: “[i]f the courts do grant me an attorney[,]
I ask the courts to please give me an extension on my objections so my attorney can go through
my evidence and all past motions . . . .” Magistrate Judge Williams denied plaintiff’s request for

1

appointed counsel, however, so this Court will accordingly deny plaintiff’s request for an
extension of time. (Docs. 44, 46.)
The Court has reviewed the entire file and finds no clear error in the Report. Accordingly,
the Court:


ADOPTS the Report in its entirety (Doc. 43);



GRANTS defendants Bagwell’s and Harvey’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 28);



DENIES plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 39);



DENIES plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time (Docs. 44, 46);



DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to terminate M. Bagwell and Paul Harvey as defendants in
this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: MARCH 2, 2018
s/ J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
DISTRICT JUDGE

2