Moir v. Andahl et al

Filing 33

ORDER DISMISSING CASE: The Court ADOPTS 31 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 30 MOTION for Sanctions filed by Timothy J. Amdahl; GRANTS 30 MOTION for Sanctions for the reasons given in the Report; and DISMISSES this action WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge David R. Herndon on 7/9/2018. (lmp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
DREW M. MOIR,
Plaintiff,
v.
TIMOTHY AMDAHL,
Defendant.

No. 17-cv-821-DRH-DGW
MEMORANDUM and ORDER

HERNDON, District Judge:
Plaintiff Drew M. Moir brought this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 while incarcerated at Robinson Correctional Center. On October
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 Donald G.
Wilkerson (Doc. 9).1 Following the referral, on October 27, 2017, Moir filed a
Notice of Change of Address providing the Court with a personal address in Iowa
(Doc. 12).
Subsequently,

on

March

21,

2018,

Amdahl

served

Plaintiff

with

interrogatories and a request for production of documents (Doc. 28, ¶ 1). Moir
did not respond to the discovery requests (Doc. 28, ¶ 1), and has not responded
to any subsequent correspondence or motions, or Court Orders. In the Court’s

1

Plaintiff’s complaint originally named David Rains as an individual defendant. After plaintiff’s
release from Robinson Correctional, defendant Rains filed a motion for summary judgment (Doc.
19). The Court dismissed Rains from the action in his individual capacity, but because Rains was
the warden of Robinson Correctional Center, he remained as a defendant in his official capacity
for purposes of any injunctive relief ordered by the Court (Doc. 9, p. 6).

May 29, 2018, Order, Moir was ordered to respond to Amdahl’s discovery
requests no later than June 8, 2018 (Doc. 29). The Order also stated: “Plaintiff is
WARNED, failure to respond to the discovery requests may result in dismissal of
this action for failure to prosecute.” (Id.). Having received no response to his
discovery, Amdahl filed the pending motion for sanctions asking the Court to
dismiss this action (Doc. 30).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(B), Magistrate Wilkerson issued a
Report and Recommendation (Athe Report@) on June 15, 2018 (Doc. 31). Judge
Wilkerson indicated that “the Court is mindful of the difficulties prisoners face in
proceeding pro se, as well as the additional obstacles Moir faced when he was
paroled from prison. Those difficulties, however, do not excuse Moir from
complying with deadlines, following the direct Orders of the Court, or maintaining
basic communication with the Court. “Once a party invokes the judicial system by
filing a lawsuit, it must abide by the rules of the court; a party cannot decide for
itself when it feels like pressing its action and when it feels like taking a break...”
James v. McDonald’s Corp., 417 F.3d 672, 681 (7th Cir. 2005).” (Doc. 31, pg. 3).
Judge Wilkerson concluded that Moir failed to comply with discovery by failing to
respond to properly propounded interrogatories and requests for production of
documents, in violation of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 33 and 34. Despite
being warned of the risks, Moir, once again, failed to comply with Magistrate
Judge Donald G. Wilkerson’s May 21, 2018 Order. (Doc. 22).

Objections to the Report and Recommendation were due on or before July
2, 2018. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(2); SDIL-LR 73.1(b). No
objections were filed. Where neither timely nor specific objections to the Report
and Recommendation are made, the Court need not conduct a de novo review.
See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Instead, the Court should review the
Report and Recommendation for clear error. Johnson v. Zema Systems Corp.,
170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999). The Court may then “accept, reject, or modify,
in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate
judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Having reviewed defendant’s motion and the Report
and Recommendation, the undersigned fully agrees with the analysis and
conclusions of Magistrate Judge Wilkerson. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
37(b)(2)(A) permits a court to sanction a party for not obeying a discovery order,
including dismissal of the action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(v).
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report (Doc. 31). The Court GRANTS
defendant’s motion for sanctions (Doc. 30) for the reasons given in the Report and
Recommendation and DISMISSES this action WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk is
DIRECTED to enter judgment accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Judge Herndon
2018.07.09
16:14:30 -05'00'
United States District Judge