Hileman v. Ehler et al

Filing 37

ORDER ADOPTING 29 Report and Recommendations and DENYING 24 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution. Signed by Chief Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel on 4/8/2019. (jmp2)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
RODERICK LYNN HILEMAN,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JOSH EHLER, SCOTT RICE, JASON
LEEK, and CITY OF ANNA, ILLINOIS,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 18-CV-184-NJR-RJD

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ROSENSTENGEL, Chief Judge:
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of United
States Magistrate Judge Reona J. Daly (Doc. 29), which recommends denying the Motion
to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution, filed by Defendants Josh Ehler, Scott Rice, Jason Leek,
and City of Anna, Illinois (Doc. 24).
Plaintiff Roderick Lynn Hileman brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging
City of Anna police officers violated his constitutional rights when they arrested him
(Doc. 1). Hileman was represented by counsel when the Complaint was filed on February
6, 2018 (Id.). On November 6, 2018, Hileman’s counsel moved to withdraw from the case
(Doc. 18). Following a hearing on the matter (Doc. 22), the Court granted the motion to
withdraw and directed Hileman to either file a notice of intent to proceed pro se or have
new counsel file his or her notice of appearance, on or before December 19, 2018 (Doc. 23).
Hileman failed to meet this deadline, and Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack
Page 1 of 3

of Prosecution on December 21, 2018 (Doc. 24). On December 27, 2018, Hileman filed a
Notice to Proceed Pro-Se (Doc. 25). The Court held a status conference on January 3, 2019,
and Hileman failed to participate (Doc. 26). The Court set another status conference for
January 24, 2019, and Hileman attended the conference (Doc. 28).
On January 24, 2019, Judge Daly issued the Report and Recommendation currently
before the Court (Doc. 29). Judge Daly recommends denying Defendants’ Motion to
Dismiss because although Hileman failed to meet the deadline to file his notice to proceed
pro se, “he has made clear to the Court that he intends to proceed with the case and is
cooperating in the discovery process (Id. at p. 3). Objections to the Report and
Recommendation were due on or before February 7, 2019. See 28 U.S.C. § 626(b)(1); FED.
R. CIV. P. 72(b)(2); SDIL-LR73.1(b). No objections were filed.
Where timely objections are filed, this Court must undertake a de novo review of
the Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), (C); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b); SDILLR 73.1(b); Harper v. City of Chicago Heights, 824 F. Supp. 786, 788 (N.D. Ill. 1993); see also
Govas v. Chalmers, 965 F.2d 298, 301 (7th Cir. 1992). Where neither timely nor specific
objections to the Report and Recommendation are made, however, this Court need not
conduct a de novo review of the Report and Recommendation. 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). A judge 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 carefully reviewed the briefs submitted by the parties, as well as
Page 2 of 3

Judge Daly’s Report and Recommendation. Following this review, the Court fully agrees
with the findings, analysis, and conclusions of Judge Daly and ADOPTS the Report and
Recommendation in its entirety. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution
(Doc. 24) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: April 8, 2019
____________________________
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
Chief U.S. District Judge

Page 3 of 3