DAVIS v. SANTOS, 15-cv-00055-JPG-DGW. (2016)
Court: District Court, S.D. Illinois
Number: infdco20160408g57
Visitors: 3
Filed: Apr. 06, 2016
Latest Update: Apr. 06, 2016
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER J. PHIL GILBERT , District Judge . This matter comes before the court on the Report and Recommendation ("R & R") (Doc. 54) of Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson with regard to Defendants Thomas Austin and Louis Shicker's Motion (Doc. 39) for Summary Judgment. There were no objections to the R & R. 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)(
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER J. PHIL GILBERT , District Judge . This matter comes before the court on the Report and Recommendation ("R & R") (Doc. 54) of Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson with regard to Defendants Thomas Austin and Louis Shicker's Motion (Doc. 39) for Summary Judgment. There were no objections to the R & R. 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..
More
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
J. PHIL GILBERT, District Judge.
This matter comes before the court on the Report and Recommendation ("R & R") (Doc. 54) of Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson with regard to Defendants Thomas Austin and Louis Shicker's Motion (Doc. 39) for Summary Judgment. There were no objections to the R & R.
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. The Court has discretion to conduct a new hearing and may consider the record before the magistrate judge anew or receive any further evidence deemed necessary. 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 R & R. The Court has reviewed the entire file and finds that the R & R is not clearly erroneous. Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report in its entirety (Doc. 54) and DENIES Defendants Thomas Austin and Louis Shicker's Motion (Doc. 39) for Summary Judgment.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
