Eastman v. Doe et al

Filing 41

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT 38 AND DENYING MOTION TO STAY 36 . Signed by Judge David R. Herndon on 8/22/2018. (jer)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
JEFFREY H. EASTMAN,
Plaintiff,
v.

No. 18-cv-543-DRH-DGW

DR. DENNIS LARSON,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM and ORDER
HERNDON, District Judge:
Introduction and Background
Pending before the Court is a July 25, 2018 Report and Recommendation
(“the Report”) issued by Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson (Doc. 38).
Magistrate Judge Wilkerson recommends that the Court deny Eastman’s motion
to stay (Doc. 36). The parties were allowed time to file objections to the Report.
On August 9, 2018, Eastman filed an objection to the Report (Doc. 40). Based on
the applicable law, the record and the following, the Court ADOPTS the Report in
its entirety.
Plaintiff filed the pending motion on July 18, 2018 asking the Court to
temporarily stay the case so that an attorney he contacted could review the file
(Doc. 36, p. 1). As Magistrate Judge Wilkerson highlighted, this Court enjoys
broad discretion in directing the course of discovery. See FED. R. CIV. P. 26;
Page 1 of 3

James v. Hyatt Regency Chicago, 707 F.3d 775, 784 (7th Cir. 2013). Discovery
can be stayed, however, if certain threshold or jurisdictional issues could be
efficiently resolved prior to expensive discovery. See Todd by Todd v. Merrell Dow

Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 942 F.2d 1173, 1178 (7th Cir. 1991) (“Limiting discovery
to a threshold issue is proper in a case that may be resolved upon summary
judgment”); Landstrom v. Illinois Dept. of Children and Family Services, 892 F.2d
670, 674 (7th Cir 1990) (approving a stay in discovery pending a ruling on
qualified immunity).
Analysis
The Court's review of the Report is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1),
which provides in part:
A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those
portions
of
the report or
specified
proposed
findings
or recommendations to which objection is made. A judge of the court
may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings
or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The judge may
also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the
magistrate judge with instructions.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) also directs that the Court must only make a de

novo determination of those portions of the report and recommendation to which
specific written objection has been made. Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d
734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999). If no objection or only a partial objection is made, the
Court reviews those unobjected portions for clear error. Id. In addition, failure
to file objections with the district court “waives appellate review of both factual
and legal questions.” Id. Under the clear error standard, the Court can only
overturn a Magistrate Judge's ruling if the Court is left with “the definite and firm
Page 2 of 3

conviction that a mistake has been made.” Weeks v. Samsung Heavy Indus. Co.,

Ltd., 126 F.3d 926, 943 (7th Cir. 1997).
Specifically, the Report found that:
As this court informed Plaintiff previously, no scheduling or
discovery order has yet been entered in this case (Doc. 24, pp. 3-4).
As there is no discovery to stay, and no jurisdictional or threshold
issues pending, it is RECOMMENDED the Court DENY Plaintiff’s
Motion to Stay. It is FURTHER RECOMMENDED the Court ADVISE
Plaintiff that should an attorney enter on his behalf after a discovery
or scheduling order is entered, the Court would entertain a motion to
amend that order.
(Doc. 38, p. 3).
Here, the Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Wilkerson’s analysis in the
Report. Eastman’s objection merely takes umbrage with the Report and the new
events presented within do not change the fact that no scheduling or discovery
order has been entered in this case (Doc. 24, pp. 3-4). Therefore, at this time
Eastman’s motion to stay is premature.
Conclusion
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report (Doc. 38). The Court DENIES
Eastman’s motion to stay (Doc. 36) for the reasons given in the Report and
Recommendation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Judge Herndon
2018.08.22 15:58:41
-05'00'
United States District Court Judge

Page 3 of 3