Jackson v. Stolworthy et al

Filing 64

ORDER finding as moot 47 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 61 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution and; adopting 63 Report and Recommendations. The Court DISMISSES with prejudice Jackson's cause of action for failure to prosecute. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to enter judgment. Signed by Judge David R. Herndon on 8/27/2018. (klh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
STEVIE JACKSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
MARK AARON, et al.,
Defendants.

No. 17-cv-420-DRH
MEMORANDUM and ORDER

HERNDON, District Judge:
This matter comes before the Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B),
on a Report and Recommendation (“the Report”) submitted by Magistrate Judge
Williams on August 7, 2018 (Doc. 63).

The Report recommends that the Court

grant an oral motion to dismiss with prejudice plaintiff’s case for failure to
prosecute (Doc. 61). Specifically, the Report found:
Here, Plaintiff has failed to file a response to Defendants’ motion for
summary judgment and failed to file anything with this Court since filing
his notice of change of address and motion for extension of time to
respond to the summary judgment motion (Docs. 51 and 52). At the
time the Court reviewed his complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A,
Plaintiff was informed that he was under a continuing obligation to
update the Court on his current location (Doc. 20, p. 42). Plaintiff was
reminded that he was to inform the Court of any change in his address
within seven (7) days and failure to update the Court would result in
dismissal of his claims (Id.). Although Plaintiff informed the Court of
his change of address, subsequent filings sent to Plaintiff were returned
undeliverable.
Further, Plaintiff failed to appear at the status
conference after being warned that the failing to do so would result in the
dismissal of his claims. Plaintiff also failed to respond to Defendants’
motion for summary judgment. As such, it appears that Plaintiff no
Page 1 of 2

longer wishes to pursue his claims as he failed to participate in the case.
(Doc. 63, p. 3).
The Report was sent to the parties with a notice informing them of their right
to appeal by way of filing “objections” 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 in its entirety (Doc. 63). The
Court GRANTS Defendants’ oral motion to dismiss with prejudice this matter for
failure to prosecute (Doc. 61). Further, the Court DENIES as moot the summary
judgment motion (Doc. 47). Lastly, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to
enter judgment reflecting the same.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Judge Herndon
2018.08.27 11:35:45
-05'00'
United States District Judge

Page 2 of 2