BONHAM v. INDIANA TUBE CORPORATION

Filing 40

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - The Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 36 ). This case is DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Final judgment shall issue by separate order. (See Order.) Signed by District Judge Matthew P. Brookman on 11/25/2024. (JSR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
EVANSVILLE DIVISION
KEVIN BONHAM,
Plaintiff,
v.
INDIANA TUBE CORPORATION,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 3:23-cv-00180-MPB-CSW

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On September 17, 2024, Defendant Indiana Tube Corporation filed a Notice of Plaintiff's
Noncompliance. (Docket No. 35). Thereafter, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
Recommendation (Docket No. 36) recommending that this case be dismissed for failure to
prosecute. Plaintiff did not file an objection.
I.

Legal Standard
While a district court judge ordinarily reviews a magistrate's judge's report and

recommendation de novo, if "no objection or only partial objection is made, the district court
judge reviews those unobjected portions for clear error." Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d
734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999) (citing Goffman v. Gross, 59 F.3d 668, 671 (7th Cir. 1995); Campbell v.
United States Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)). Following such review, the district
court judge is empowered to adopt, reject, or modify the recommendations and/or findings by the
Magistrate Judge. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
II.

Discussion
In support of her recommendation that this case be dismissed for failure to prosecute, the

Magistrate Judge provided the following reasoning:

Plaintiff has failed to respond to discovery requests that are long overdue despite
an order compelling his responses. (Dkt. 34). Plaintiff’s counsel has not had direct
contact with his client for an extended period of time, and Plaintiff’s current
whereabouts are unknown. (Dkt. 35). Plaintiff’s failure to maintain contact with his
counsel and failure to cooperate in the discovery process has caused an unnecessary
delay, which has prejudiced the Defendant in its ability to investigate Plaintiff’s
claims and defend the case.
(Id. at ECF p. 1). Plaintiff did not timely file an objection. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Having reviewed the recommendation and the record, the Court finds
no clear error. Although dismissal is a harsh sanction, it is appropriate in this instance.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation
(Docket No. 36). This case is DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 41(b). Final judgment shall issue by separate order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 25, 2024

Served electronically on all ECF-registered counsel of record.

2