NEELEY v. BRIDGESTONE AMERICAS TIRE OPERATIONS, LLC, 1:14-cv-01413-JBM-JEH (2015)
Court: District Court, C.D. Illinois
Number: infdco20151120b57
Visitors: 4
Filed: Nov. 03, 2015
Latest Update: Nov. 03, 2015
Summary: Report and Recommendation JONATHAN E. HAWLEY , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff has not responded to the September 29, 2015 Court order to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. Accordingly, the Court recommends that Plaintiff's case be dismissed for failure to prosecute and for failure to comply with a Court order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The parties are advised that any objection to this Report and Recommendation must be filed in w
Summary: Report and Recommendation JONATHAN E. HAWLEY , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff has not responded to the September 29, 2015 Court order to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. Accordingly, the Court recommends that Plaintiff's case be dismissed for failure to prosecute and for failure to comply with a Court order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The parties are advised that any objection to this Report and Recommendation must be filed in wr..
More
Report and Recommendation
JONATHAN E. HAWLEY, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff has not responded to the September 29, 2015 Court order to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. Accordingly, the Court recommends that Plaintiff's case be dismissed for failure to prosecute and for failure to comply with a Court order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
The parties are advised that any objection to this Report and Recommendation must be filed in writing with the Clerk within fourteen (14) working days after service of this Report and Recommendation. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(2); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Failure to object will constitute a waiver of objections on appeal. Johnson v. Zema Systems Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999); Lorentzen v. Anderson Pest Control, 64 F.3d 327, 330 (7th Cir. 1995).
It is so ordered.
Source: Leagle
