Lofquist v. Gimber et al

Filing 28

ORDER ADOPTING 27 Report and Recommendations and FINDING AS MOOT 13 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel on 11/15/2018. (klh2)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
NEIL J. LOFQUIST,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CINDY GIMBER,
FRANK LAWRENCE, and
ANN LAHR,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 18-CV-1305-NJR-DGW

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ROSENSTENGEL, District Judge:
Plaintiff Neil Lofquist began researching his family’s genealogy in 2014 with few,
if any, restrictions by Menard Correctional Center (Doc. 3). In 2017, however, things
changed, and he is no longer allowed to receive or possess information about his
ancestors (Doc. 3). Lofquist filed this civil rights lawsuit alleging that the restrictions
violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments (Doc. 3). On August 22, 2018, Lofquist filed
a motion for preliminary injunction asking the Court to enjoin Defendants from blocking
mail related to his family history research (Doc. 13). After filing the motion, he was
transferred from Menard to Lawrence Correctional Center (Doc. 26).
Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson entered a Report and Recommendation on
October 22, 2018, in which he concludes that Lofquist’s request for a preliminary
injunction against Menard is now moot due to Lofquist’s transfer (Doc. 27). Lofquist did
not file an objection to the Report and Recommendation by the deadline (see id.).

Page 1 of 2

Because no party has filed an objection, the undersigned need not undertake de
novo review. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) (“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.”) (emphasis added). See also Thomas v. Arn,
474 U.S. 140 (1985); Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 741 (7th Cir. 1999); Video
Views, Inc. v. Studio 21, Ltd., 797 F.2d 538 (7th Cir. 1986).
The undersigned accordingly ADOPTS in its entirety Magistrate Judge
Wilkerson’s Report and Recommendation and FINDS AS MOOT Lofquist’s motion for
a preliminary injunction (Doc. 13).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: November 15, 2018

NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
United States District Judge

Page 2 of 2