OPINION MICHAEL P. McCUSKEY, District Judge. This is an employment discrimination case. Plaintiff claims that after she sought to not work overtime due to her chronic fatigue syndrome, Defendant first discriminated against her due to her health condition, and then eventually terminated her employment, in contravention of the Family Medical Leave Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is before the court on Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (#35). This court has carefully...
PRIVACY ACT PROTECTIVE ORDER DAVID G. BERNTHAL, Magistrate Judge. Upon the stipulated and agreed motion of the defendant, the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, and pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b)(11) of the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(11) and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), Public Law 104-191, the Court finds that entry of a Protective Order is appropriate. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's Motion with Plaintiff's Consent for...
ORDER & OPINION JOE BILLY McDADE, Senior District Judge. This matter is before the Court on Appellant's appeal from the decision of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of Illinois discharging Appellee's student loan debt. Both parties have filed their respective briefs, and the matter is ready for disposition. For the reasons stated below, the decision of the bankruptcy court is reversed. STANDARD OF REVIEW This Court has jurisdiction to review the decision of the...
OPINION SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, District Judge. This Court conducted a bench trial on October 30, 2012 on the issue of statutory damages. For the reasons that follow, statutory damages in the amount of $1,000 are awarded in favor of Plaintiff, Stephanie Kaylor-Trent and against Defendant John C. Bonewicz, P.C. I. FACTS In August 2011, Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) (15 U.S.C. 1692 et seq.). Plaintiff alleged that Defendant...
OPINION MICHAEL P. McCUSKEY, District Judge. Judge Posner recently wrote for the Seventh Circuit: It is a curiosity of class action litigation that often there is greater ferocity in combat among the class lawyers over the allocation of attorneys' fees than there is between the class lawyers and the defendants. The contest among the lawyers is a zero-sum game. But the contest between them and the defendants is a positive-sum game because the class lawyers are naturally very interested in...
OPINION SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, District Judge: This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation entered by Magistrate Judge Byron G. Cudmore. See d/e 21. In the Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Cudmore recommends allowing the Motion to Dismiss (d/e 9) filed by Defendants Harold Gist ("Gist") and The City of Girard, Illinois ("Girard"). Plaintiff, Patrick O'Keefe ("O'Keefe"), timely filed an Objection to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation ("Objections") (...
OPINION SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, District Judge. This cause is before the Court on Defendant Russell Shuetz's Motion for Revocation of Detention Order (d/e 11) (Motion), which United States Magistrate Judge Byron G. Cudmore has construed as a notice of appeal from the order of detention issued on July 18, 2012, and referred to this Court for ruling. The Court has reviewed the electronic recordings of the July 11, 2012 detention hearing and the July 13, 2012 hearing on Defendant's Motion for...
OPINION BYRON G. CUDMORE, Magistrate Judge. Before the Court is Defendant's Motion for Emergency Relief (d/e 5) filed Friday, July 13, 2012. The Defendant, Russell Schuetz, is represented by Court-appointed counsel Daniel Hillis, Assistant Federal Public Defender. A hearing on Defendant's motion was held at 4:15 p.m. on Friday, July 13, 2012. The Defendant and Attorney Hillis were personally present. The Government appeared through Assistant United States Attorney Tim Bass. At the conclusion...
OPINION MICHAEL P. McCUSKEY, District Judge. This case is before the court for ruling on the Second Motion for Summary Judgment (#32) filed by Defendant, the Yankee Candle Company, Inc. Following this court's careful consideration of the arguments of the parties and the exhibits provided by the parties, Defendant's Second Motion for Summary Judgment (#32) is GRANTED. In addition, Defendant's Motion to Deem Facts Admitted (#47) and Motion to Strike (#52) are DENIED as moot. FACTS 1...
OPINION SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, District Judge. Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, alleges that he was retaliated against for filing an emergency grievance against Defendant Tallman. Specifically, Defendants Tallman, DeWitt, and Johnson allegedly interrogated Plaintiff, used excessive force against him, interfered with prescribed medicine, refused medical treatment, and wrote false disciplinary reports against him. Plaintiff pursues claims for retaliation, excessive force, interference with and refusal...
ORDER & OPINION JOE BILLY McDADE, Senior District Judge. This matter is before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss Counts II, IV, VI, and VIII of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint filed by Defendants on October 3, 2011 (Doc. 13), and the Motion to Exclude Exhibits Offered in Support of Motion to Dismiss Counts II, IV, VI, and VIII of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (Doc. 17). For the following reasons, both of Defendants' Motions are granted. BACKGROUND 1 On July 30, 2011, a semi-...
OPINION SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (d/e 39) entered by Magistrate Judge David G. Bernthal on June 13, 2012. Plaintiff filed "Plaintiff's Objections to the Magistrate's Report and Recommendation (In Favor of Dismissal of All Causes In This Action)" (Objections) (d/e 40) on June 14, 2012. See 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). The Report and Recommendation recommends granting Defendants' various motions to...
ORDER SARA DARROW, District Judge. This case involves Plaintiff's application for Social Security disability benefits. The application was denied by Defendant, and Plaintiff sought judicial review. For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment seeking reversal of the Defendant's decision and GRANTS Defendant's Motion for Summary Affirmance. I. BACKGROUND On August 4, 2004, Plaintiff Terry D. Barnes ("Barnes") filed an application for Supplemental...
OPINION BYRON G. CUDMORE, Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff Stephanie Watts appeals from the denial of her application for Social Security Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income (collectively "Disability Benefits") under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act. 42 U.S.C. 416(i), 423, 1381a, and 1382c. This appeal is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 405(g) and 1383(c). Watts has filed her Motion for Summary Judgment (d/e 15), and Defendant Commissioner of Social...
OPINION MICHAEL P. McCUSKEY, District Judge. This case is before the court for ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment (# 25) filed by the Defendants, Keith Anglin, Cory Foster, Gladyse Taylor and Jim Reinhart. This court has carefully reviewed the arguments of the parties and the documents filed by the parties. Following this careful and thorough review, Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (# 25) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. FACTS 1 I. Plaintiff's Employment Background...
ORDER JAMES E. SHADID, Chief District Judge. On July 10, 2012, a Report and Recommendation [#37] was filed in the above-captioned case by United States Magistrate Judge Byron G. Cudmore recommending dismissal of the case as a sanction for willful failure to comply with the Court's orders. Discussion The facts were given in detail in the R&R, but by way of summary, the original Complaint [#1] was filed on August 19, 2010, and an Amended Complaint [#2] and Second Amended Complaint [#9] were...
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION BYRON G. CUDMORE, Magistrate Judge. Before the Court is Defendant Princeton National Bancorp, Inc.'s Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Responses to Written Discovery (d/e 31) to which no response has been made by pro se Plaintiff. Also before the Court is Defendant's Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2), or in Alternative, Pursuant to Rule 41(b) (d/e 35). For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned recommends this case be...
OPINION SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, District Judge. The Court now considers Plaintiff United States of America's Motion to Enter Judgment (d/e 21)(hereinafter the "Motion"). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55, 28 U.S.C. 2001, and for the reasons stated below, the Motion is GRANTED. In connection with its decision, the Court has considered all of the pleadings and evidence submitted to date. Based thereon, the Court makes these FINDINGS: I. JURISDICTION 1. The Court has jurisdiction...
ORDER JAMES E. SHADID, District Judge. This matter is now before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Reversal and the Commissioner's Motion to Affirm. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Reversal [#11] is DENIED, and the Commissioner's Motion to Affirm [#15] is GRANTED. BACKGROUND Plaintiff, Steve Bernard Harvey ("Harvey"), was 45 years' old at the time of his administrative hearing. (R34) He completed high school and has one year of college education. (...
ORDER MICHAEL P. McCUSKEY, District Judge. On June 1, 2012, Magistrate Judge David G. Bernthal filed a Report and Recommendation (#41) in this case. Judge Bernthal recommended that Defendant Kankakee County's Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint (#29) be denied because the Plaintiffs brought suit directly against Kankakee County and, therefore, Kankakee County is a necessary and an indispensable party in this litigation. Judge Bernthal also recommended that...
