Thornton v. Dennison et al

Filing 51

ORDER DISMISSING CASE: The Court ADOPTS 50 Report and Recommendations re 47 Motion to Dismiss, and DISMISSES this case without prejudice. The Clerk is DIRECTED to close the file. Signed by Judge David R. Herndon on 6/25/2018. (lmp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
TRAVIS THORNTON,
Plaintiff,
v.
JEFFERY DENNISON, and DR. DAVID,
Defendants.

No. 17-cv-415-DRH-SCW
MEMORANDUM and ORDER

HERNDON, District Judge:
Plaintiff Travis Thornton brought this pro se action for deprivations of his
constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaint alleges a delay
in treatment of plaintiff’s infected toenail. On June 20, 2017, the Court conducted
its preliminary review of the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and the
matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Williams (Doc. 5). Plaintiff
was permitted to proceed on his deliberate indifference claims against Dr. David
and Warden of Shawnee Correctional Center, Jeffrey Dennison.
Currently pending before the Court is plaintiff’s oral motion to dismiss
(Doc. 47), which he raised at a June 1, 2018 Status Conference before Judge
Williams after a discussion surrounding a possible continuance until August.
Plaintiff expressed that he is currently in a transition program, and if he were to
miss any work for the first 90 days of employment at his current job, he would
lose the job. Plaintiff also indicated that as a result of the job, he cannot attend
Page 1 of 2

any hearing until the middle of August. Neither defendant objected to the oral
motion to dismiss at the status conference.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(B), Magistrate Williams submitted a
Report and Recommendation (Athe Report@) on June 5, 2018 (Doc. 50).

The

Report recommends that the Court grant plaintiff’s oral motion to dismiss his
case without prejudice pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 41(a)(2). 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).
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report (Doc. 50). The Court GRANTS
plaintiff’s oral motion to dismiss (Doc. 47) and DISMISSES this case without
prejudice. The Clerk is DIRECTED to close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Judge Herndon
2018.06.25
11:16:18 -05'00'
United States District Judge

Page 2 of 2