Jennings, Jr. v. Garner et al

Filing 55

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: The Court ADOPTS in its entirety Judge Williams' R&R (Doc. 53 ), GRANTS Defendants' motion (Doc. 50 ), and DISMISSES this case with prejudice for want of prosecution. Judgment shall be entered in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff. Signed by Chief Judge Michael J. Reagan on 1/9/2019. (rah)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
JAMES C. JENNINGS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
MR. GARNER,1
SHERRY BENTON,
and JEANNETTE COWAN,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 17-cv-1220-MJR-MAB

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
AND DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE
REAGAN, Chief Judge:
This is a prisoner civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, filed by James Jennings
when he was incarcerated at Shawnee Correctional Center (he has since been released
from custody), and presenting claims under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to
the United States Constitution.

Surviving threshold review of the complaint was

Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claim against three Defendants – Garner
(Gardiner), Benton, and Collins. These three Defendants moved to dismiss this case
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for want of prosecution by Plaintiff (Doc. 50).
The Magistrate Judge then assigned to the case (the Honorable Stephen C.
Williams) held a hearing on the motion and issued a Report and Recommendation
thereon (Doc. 53, R&R). The R&R recommends that the undersigned District Judge grant

Subsequent pleadings (e.g., Docs. 20, 27, 34) have identified “Mr.
Garner” as Jeffrey Gardiner. The Clerk’s Office shall correct the docket
sheet to reflect his updated name.
1

1|Page

Defendants’ motion and dismiss this entire case with prejudice based on Plaintiff’s failure
to prosecute (including his failure to appear for a settlement conference on December 7,
2018 despite his receiving notice clearly warning him that failing to participate would
trigger dismissal of this lawsuit).
The R&R plainly stated that any objection must be filed by January 7, 2019.
That deadline passed two days ago, with neither an objection nor a motion for extension
of the deadline filed. Because no objection was lodged against the R&R, the undersigned
need not conduct de novo review of the R&R. 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(C) (A judge shall make
a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings
or recommendations to which objection is made.); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985);
Johnson v. Zema Systems Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 741 (7th Cir. 1999); Video Views Inc., v.
Studio 21, Ltd., 797 F.2d 538 (7th Cir. 1986).
The Court ADOPTS in its entirety Judge Williams' R&R (Doc. 53), GRANTS
Defendants’ motion (Doc. 50), and DISMISSES this case with prejudice for want of
prosecution. Judgment shall be entered in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED January 9, 2019.

s/ Michael J. Reagan
Michael J. Reagan
United States District Judge

2|Page