ANDERSON v. CITY OF ROCKFORD, 15 C 50065. (2016)
Court: District Court, N.D. Illinois
Number: infdco20160225b07
Visitors: 9
Filed: Feb. 24, 2016
Latest Update: Feb. 24, 2016
Summary: ORDER FREDERICK J. KAPALA , District Judge . Before the court is a report and recommendation ("R&R") from the magistrate judge [63] recommending denial of the parties' agreed motion to consolidate [57] this case with case number 15 C 50064 for the purposes of discovery and pretrial matters only. The magistrate judge recommends denying the agreed motion, as the cases have already been consolidated for the purposes of discovery and the only benefit to the parties' motion would be to reduce t
Summary: ORDER FREDERICK J. KAPALA , District Judge . Before the court is a report and recommendation ("R&R") from the magistrate judge [63] recommending denial of the parties' agreed motion to consolidate [57] this case with case number 15 C 50064 for the purposes of discovery and pretrial matters only. The magistrate judge recommends denying the agreed motion, as the cases have already been consolidated for the purposes of discovery and the only benefit to the parties' motion would be to reduce th..
More
ORDER
FREDERICK J. KAPALA, District Judge.
Before the court is a report and recommendation ("R&R") from the magistrate judge [63] recommending denial of the parties' agreed motion to consolidate [57] this case with case number 15 C 50064 for the purposes of discovery and pretrial matters only. The magistrate judge recommends denying the agreed motion, as the cases have already been consolidated for the purposes of discovery and the only benefit to the parties' motion would be to reduce the number of pleadings filed by the parties, but those pleadings would eventually lead to greater confusion when the court would unconsolidate the cases for trial. The magistrate judge also recommends that the denial be without prejudice, should the parties later decide to consolidate the cases in a more substantive way. Despite being given an opportunity, no party objects to the R&R. Without belaboring the point, the court agrees with and adopts the magistrate judge's analysis. Accordingly, there being no written objection to the R&R, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985) and the court having reviewed the R&R, the court accepts the R&R [63] and denies the motion to consolidate [57] without prejudice.
Source: Leagle
