REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

STEPHEN C. WILLIAMS, Magistrate Judge.

This matter is before the Court on Defendants' oral motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution (Doc. 50). The case was set for a settlement conference on December 7, 2018 (Doc. 47). Plaintiff received notice of the settlement conference at his address as identified on the docket (Doc. 46). Plaintiff failed to appear at the settlement conference (Doc. 49) and Defendants moved to dismiss the case. The undersigned set the matter for hearing (Doc. 51) and Plaintiff was provided notice of the hearing. He was also warned that a failure to appear would result in dismissal of his claims. Plaintiff failed to appear either in person or by phone.

In light of Plaintiff's failure to appear and his lack of participation in the case, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that the Court DISMISS Plaintiff's case with prejudice for failure to prosecute.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) provides that "[i]f the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss the action or any claim against it." In dismissing a case for lack of prosecution, the Seventh Circuit has indicated that a district court commits legal error "when it dismisses a suit `immediately after the first problem, without exploring other options or saying why they would not be fruitful.'" Sroga v. Huberman, 722 F.3d 980, 982 (7th Cir. 2013) (quoting Johnson v. Chi. Bd. of Educ., 718 F.3d 731, 732-33 (7th Cir. 2013)). The Seventh Circuit has suggested that in addition to a warning to the plaintiff, the court must consider essential factors such as "the frequency and egregiousness of the plaintiff's failure to comply with other deadlines, the effect of the delay on the court's calendar, and the prejudice resulting to the defendants." Id. (citing Kruger v. Apfel, 214 F.3d 784, 786-87 (7th Cir. 2000)).

Here, Plaintiff has failed to participate in his case. He failed to appear at the December 7, 2018 settlement conference and failed to appear at the hearing on Defendant's motion to dismiss, despite warnings from the undersigned that his failure to appear would result in a dismissal of his claims. As such, it appears to the undersigned that Plaintiff no longer wishes to pursue his claims.

Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that the Court DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE Plaintiff's claims for failure to prosecute.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 73.1(b), the parties may object to any or all of the proposed dispositive findings in this Recommendation. 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. See, e.g., Snyder v. Nolen, 380 F.3d 279, 284 (7th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, Objections to this Report and Recommendation must be filed on or before January 7, 2019.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the Southern District of Illinois

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 (14) 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).