A.D. et al v. Meridian Community Unit School District 101 et al

Filing 55

ORDER ADOPTING 53 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. This case is DISMISSED with prejudice for Plaintiffs' failure to prosecute. The pending 34 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim and 45 Motion for Leave to File are DENIED as moot. Signed by Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel on 11/29/2018. (mlp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
A.D., individually and as Mother and Next
Friend of K.D., a minor, and K.D.,
a minor,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
MERIDIAN COMMUNITY UNIT
SCHOOL DISTRICT 101, TIM TURNER,
DORLISSA CHERRY, SPENCER BYRD,
MELISSA MCCUTCHEN-WILLIAMS,
TAMARA MCCUTCHEN, VICTOR
BAKER, LAWANDA GREEN, MIKE
HILEMAN, MELODY SPAULDING,
JAMIE NICHOLS, and DEON CHERRY,
Defendants.

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

Case No. 3:18-CV-162-NJR-RJD

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ROSENSTENGEL, District Judge:
This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate
Judge Reona J. Daly (Doc. 53), which recommends the Court dismiss this action pursuant to Rule
41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure due to Plaintiffs’ failure to prosecute.
Plaintiff A.D. and Plaintiff K.D., a minor, filed a complaint on February 1, 2018, alleging
violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Illinois state law (Doc. 1). On August 17, 2018, counsel for
Plaintiffs, Daniel Seidman, filed a motion for leave to withdraw as counsel for Plaintiffs, citing a
breakdown in the attorney-client relationship and communication therein (Doc. 48).
Magistrate Judge Daly held a hearing on counsel’s motion to withdraw on September 13,
2018 (see Doc. 50). Counsel for both parties appeared, but Plaintiffs did not, despite being ordered
to do so. Magistrate Judge Daly granted counsel’s motion to withdraw and gave Plaintiff A.D.
additional time to file a notice of her intent to proceed pro se or have new counsel file their notice
of appearance by October 4, 2018. Because Plaintiff K.D. is a minor, Magistrate Judge Daly

Page 1 of 2

ordered that K.D. obtain new counsel by October 4, 2018, to remain a party to this case. Plaintiff
A.D. was further ordered to show cause why she failed to appear at the motion hearing as
ordered. Plaintiff A.D. was advised that failure to respond to the Show Cause Order may result
in the imposition of sanctions, up to and including dismissal of this lawsuit. Plaintiff did not file
a response.
Due to Plaintiffs’ failure to comply with several orders and their apparent lack of interest
in litigating this case, Magistrate Judge Daly now recommends this Court dismiss the action
under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute. Objections to the Report and Recommendation were
due November 26, 2018 (Doc. 53). No objection was filed.
Because no objection was filed, the undersigned District Judge need not undertake de novo
review. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 741 (7th Cir. 1999).
Instead, the Court should review the Report and Recommendation for clear error. Johnson, 170
F.3d at 739. 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).
The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Daly’s Report and Recommendation for clear
error. Following this review, the Court agrees with her findings, analysis, and conclusions. The
undersigned accordingly ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation in its entirety (Doc. 53). This
action is DISMISSED with prejudice, and the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: November 29, 2018

____________________________
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
United States District Judge

Page 2 of 2