Tompkins v. Whiteside County Jail, Case No: 15 C 50206. (2018)
Court: District Court, N.D. Illinois
Number: infdco20180227940
Visitors: 5
Filed: Feb. 26, 2018
Latest Update: Feb. 26, 2018
Summary: ORDER FREDERICK J. KAPALA , District Judge . Before the court is a report and recommendation ("R&R") [70] by the magistrate judge that defendants' affirmative defense of failure to exhaust administrative remedies be rejected and this action proceed to the merits of plaintiff's claims. After being afforded a sufficient opportunity, neither party has offered any objection to the R&R. Accordingly, there being no written objection to the R&R of the magistrate judge, see 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)
Summary: ORDER FREDERICK J. KAPALA , District Judge . Before the court is a report and recommendation ("R&R") [70] by the magistrate judge that defendants' affirmative defense of failure to exhaust administrative remedies be rejected and this action proceed to the merits of plaintiff's claims. After being afforded a sufficient opportunity, neither party has offered any objection to the R&R. Accordingly, there being no written objection to the R&R of the magistrate judge, see 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1);..
More
ORDER
FREDERICK J. KAPALA, District Judge.
Before the court is a report and recommendation ("R&R") [70] by the magistrate judge that defendants' affirmative defense of failure to exhaust administrative remedies be rejected and this action proceed to the merits of plaintiff's claims. After being afforded a sufficient opportunity, neither party has offered any objection to the R&R. Accordingly, there being no written objection to the R&R of the magistrate judge, 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 and rejects defendants' affirmative defense of failure to exhaust administrative remedies and this action shall proceed to the merits of plaintiff's claims.
Source: Leagle
