Rosco v. Equifax

Filing 72

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 67 Report and Recommendations; DENYING 54 MOTION to Enforce Settlement re 53 MOTION for Sanctions and Motion to Enforce Settlement and Opposition to Plaintiff's Notice Of No Settlement 52 filed by Eq uifax; ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 68 Report and Recommendations; DENYING 34 Plaintiff's MOTION for Sanction Against Equifax and Their Counselor for Willful Discovery Violations by Plaintiff Russell D. Rosco; DENYING 53 Sanct ions for Failing to Provide Documents Outlined in Supplemental Response to Interrogatories by Plaintiff Russell D. Rosco; DENYING 62 MOTION for Sanctions Order and Proposed Sanction Provisions by Plaintiff Russell D Rosco. Signed by Judge Rudy Lozano on 9/23/2015. (lhc)(cc: Pla)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
FORT WAYNE DIVISION
RUSSELL D. ROSCO,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
vs.
EQUIFAX INFORMATION
SERVICES, INC.,
Defendant.

CAUSE NO. 1:14-CV-141

ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the: (1) Report and
Recommendation

of

Magistrate

Judge

Susan

Collins,

filed

on

September 4, 2015 (DE #67); and (2) Report and Recommendation of
Magistrate Judge Susan Collins, also filed on September 4, 2015 (DE
#68).
First, Magistrate Collins ruled upon Defendant’s motion to
enforce a settlement agreement (DE #54), finding the parties had
not reached an agreement, or a meeting of the minds, on at least
one essential term, Plaintiff’s receipt of his corrected “credit
file,” and denying the motion to enforce a settlement agreement.
(DE #67).
Second,

Magistrate

Collins

ruled

on

three

motions

for

sanctions by filed by pro se Plaintiff, Russell Rosco (DE ##34, 53,
62), and found that the Court had not issued a discovery order with
which Equifax had failed to comply, thus the motions for sanctions

were denied.

(DE #68.)

More than 14 days have passed and no party has filed any
objection to either Report and Recommendation.

Fed. R. Civ. P.

72(b)(2); see also Willis v. Caterpillar, Inc., 199 F.3d 902, 904
(7th Cir. 1999) (explaining that the failure to file a timely
objection will result in the waiver of the right to challenge a
report and recommendation).

Therefore, the parties have waived

their right to challenge the report and recommendations.
Therefore,
Recommendation

the
(DE

Court

#67).

hereby

ADOPTS

Accordingly,

the

Report

Defendant’s

motion

and
to

enforce settlement (DE #54) is DENIED.
Additionally,

the

Recommendation (DE #68).

court

ADOPTS

the

second

Report

and

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motions for

sanctions (DE ##34, 53, and 62) are DENIED.

DATED: September 23, 2015

/s/ RUDY LOZANO, Judge
United States District Court

2