Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

FORD v. WALL, 12-cv-1282-JPG-PMF. (2015)

Court: District Court, S.D. Illinois Number: infdco20150825811 Visitors: 18
Filed: Aug. 20, 2015
Latest Update: Aug. 20, 2015
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER J. PHIL GILBERT , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation ("Report") (Doc. 82) of Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson following an evidentiary hearing pursuant to McCarthy v. Bronson, 500 U.S. 136 (1991). Magistrate Judge Wilkerson recommends judgment be granted in favor of defendants C/O Wall and C/O McCallister and against plaintiff Bobby Ford. The Court may accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part, the findings
More

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation ("Report") (Doc. 82) of Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson following an evidentiary hearing pursuant to McCarthy v. Bronson, 500 U.S. 136 (1991). Magistrate Judge Wilkerson recommends judgment be granted in favor of defendants C/O Wall and C/O McCallister and against plaintiff Bobby Ford.

The Court may accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations of the magistrate judge in a report and recommendation. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). The Court must review de novo the portions of the report to which objections are made. Id. "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).

The Court has received no objection to the Report. The Court has reviewed the entire file and finds that the Report is not clearly erroneous. Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report in its entirety (Doc. 82) and DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to enter judgment in favor of defendants Wall and McCallister. The Court further notes that, had any objection been filed and had the Court reviewed the matter de novo, it would have reached the same conclusion for the reasons stated in the Report.

The Court further DISMISSES Ford's claims against the Unknown Party Correctional Officers without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) for failure to timely effect service of process. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to enter judgment accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer