Mitchell v. Scott et al

Filing 41

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: The undersigned ADOPTS in its entirety Magistrate Judge Wilkerson's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 40). 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 9/6/2018. (klh2)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
ALBERT C. MITCHELL,
Plaintiff,
vs.
MICHAEL SCOTT,
CHRISTINE BROWN,
JACQUELINE LASHBROOK, and
KAREN JAIMET,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 17-CV-245-NJR-DGW

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ROSENSTENGEL, District Judge:
Plaintiff Albert Mitchell filed this pro se lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
against various prison officials for denying him medical treatment while he was an
inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections housed at Pinckneyville Correctional
Center (Doc. 1; Doc. 6).
The case is currently before the Court on a Report and Recommendation entered
by Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson on August 16, 2018, in which he recommends
dismissing this case with prejudice for lack of prosecution (Doc. 40). Mitchell failed to
respond to Defendants’ discovery requests and to Defendants’ motion to compel
(see Doc. 37). He also failed to respond to the Court’s order to show cause as to why this
matter should not be dismissed for want of prosecution (see Doc. 39). And he did not file
an objection to Magistrate Judge Wilkerson’s Report and Recommendation by the

Page 1 of 2

deadline on September 4, 2018 (see Doc. 40). In fact, based on a review of the docket, it
appears the Court has not heard from Mitchell since he filed a notice of his change of
address in April 2017 following his release from prison (Doc. 22).
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. 40). 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 6, 2018
___________________________
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
United States District Judge

Page 2 of 2