REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

DONALD G. WILKERSON, Magistrate Judge.

This matter has been referred to United States Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson by United States District Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), and SDIL-LR 72.1(a), for a Report and Recommendation on Defendants' Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 60), Motion to Stay Discovery (Doc. 61) and Motion to Compel Discovery (Doc. 62). For the reasons set forth below, it is RECOMMENDED that Defendants' Motion for Sanctions be GRANTED, the Motions to Stay Discovery and to Compel Discovery be DISMISSED AS MOOT, that this action be DISMISSED with PREJUDICE, and that the Court adopt the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Plaintiff Ivan Walton filed the pending action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that officials at Shawnee Correctional Center deprived him of 141.5 days of earned good conduct credit and, in doing so, unnecessarily prolonged his incarceration in state prison (Doc. 1, pp. 8-18). The Court performed a preliminary review of the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and Walton was allowed to proceed on the following claims:

Walton was advised he was under a continuing obligation to keep the Clerk of Court and each opposing party informed on any change of address (Doc. 7, p. 13). On July 25, 2016 Walton informed the Court that his addressed had been changed to 493 Linda Lane, Lynwood, Illinois 60411 (Doc. 25, p. 1). The Court has not received notice of any further changes of address.

Defendants served Walton with notice of deposition at the above listed address on August 29, 2017, however Walton did not attend the scheduled deposition (Doc. 60, p. 2). On September 6, 2017 Defendants served Walton with written discovery requests (Doc. 61, p. 1). Walton did not respond to the discovery requests (Doc. 62, p. 2). Defendants' counsel sent correspondence to Walton in an effort to confer with him regarding the outstanding discovery requests (Doc. 62, p. 1) but received no response.

On December 1, 2017 Magistrate Judge Donald Wilkerson entered an Order to Show Cause and set an in-person hearing for December 18, 2017, for Walton to appear and Show Cause why the pending action should not be dismissed for failure to comply with discovery (Doc. 63). The Order to Show Cause warned Walton that failure to appear at the hearing might result in a recommendation that sanctions being imposed, including a recommendation that this action be dismissed with prejudice (Doc. 63, p. 2). The Clerk of Court sent copies of Magistrate Judge Wilkerson's Order to Show Cause (Doc. 63) and Defendants' Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 60) to Walton via certified mail at the address on file with the Court.

On December 18, 2017, counsel for Defendants appeared for the scheduled hearing. Despite the Court waiting twenty minutes, and his name being called in the hall outside of the courtroom three times, Walton did not appear.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2)(A) permits a court to sanction a party for not obeying a discovery order, including dismissal of the action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(v). The Court is mindful of the difficulties prisoners face in proceeding pro se, as well as the additional obstacles Walton faced when he was paroled from prison. Those difficulties, however, do not excuse Walton from complying with deadlines, following the direct Orders of the Court, or maintaining basic communication with the Court. "Once a party invokes the judicial system by filing a lawsuit, it must abide by the rules of the court; a party cannot decide for itself when it feels like pressing its action and when it feels like taking a break . . ." James v. McDonald's Corp., 417 F.3d 672, 681 (7th Cir. 2005). Here, the Court finds that Walton has failed to comply with discovery in this case by failing to respond to properly propounded interrogatories and failing to appear for his scheduled deposition. Further, the Court finds that despite being warned of the risks, Walton failed to appear at the December 18, 2017 Show Cause hearing in violation of Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson's order.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, it is RECOMMENDED that Defendants' Motion for Sanctions be GRANTED, the Motions to Stay Discovery and to Compel Discovery be DISMISSED AS MOOT, that this action be DISMISSED with PREJUDICE, and that the Court adopt the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and SDIL-LR 73.1(b), the parties shall have fourteen (14) days after service of this Report and Recommendation to file written objections thereto. The failure to file a timely objection may result in the waiver of the right to challenge this Recommendation before either the District Court or the Court of Appeals. Snyder v. Nolen, 380 F.3d 279, 284 (7th Cir. 2004); United States v. Hernandez-Rivas, 348 F.3d 595, 598 (7th Cir. 2003).

NOTICE

PURSUANT to Title 28 U.S.C. §636(b) and Rule 73.1(b) of the Local Rules of Practice in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, any party may serve and file written OBJECTIONS to this Report and Recommendation/ Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law within fourteen days of service.

Please note: You are not to file an appeal as to the Report and Recommendation/Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. At this point, it is appropriate to file OBJECTIONS, if any, to the Report and Recommendation/ Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. An appeal is inappropriate until after the District Judge issues an Order either affirming or reversing the Report and Recommendation/ Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law of the U.S. Magistrate Judge.

Failure to file such OBJECTIONS shall result in a waiver of the right to appeal all issues, both factual and legal, which are addressed in the Report and Recommendation/Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Video Views, Inc. v. Studio 21, Ltd. and Joseph Sclafani, 797 F.2d 538 (7th Cir. 1986).

You should e-file/mail your OBJECTIONS to the Clerk, U.S. District Court at the address indicated below: