Filed: Nov. 12, 2019
Latest Update: Nov. 12, 2019
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL , Chief District Judge . This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Reona J. Daly (Doc. 169), which recommends that the Court dismiss the unknown defendants in this case with prejudice. The Report and Recommendation was entered on October 23, 2019; no objections have been filed. Where neither timely nor specific objections to the Report and Recommendation are made, the Court should review th
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL , Chief District Judge . This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Reona J. Daly (Doc. 169), which recommends that the Court dismiss the unknown defendants in this case with prejudice. The Report and Recommendation was entered on October 23, 2019; no objections have been filed. Where neither timely nor specific objections to the Report and Recommendation are made, the Court should review the..
More
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL, Chief District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Reona J. Daly (Doc. 169), which recommends that the Court dismiss the unknown defendants in this case with prejudice. The Report and Recommendation was entered on October 23, 2019; no objections have been filed.
Where neither timely nor specific objections to the Report and Recommendation are made, the Court should review the Report and Recommendation for clear error. Johnson v. Zema Systems Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999). The Court may then "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The undersigned has reviewed Judge Daly's Report and Recommendation and finds there is no clear error in her findings of fact or conclusions of law. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 169) is ADOPTED in its entirety. The Court finds that Plaintiff, David Robert Bentz, has failed to prosecute his case as to the unknown defendants (Jane Doe Nurses 1, 2, and 15, John/Jane Doe Medical Staff 3, John Doe Sgt. 16, and John/Jane Doe Medical Staff 7). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), Defendants Jane Doe Nurses 1, 2, and 15, John/Jane Doe Medical Staff 3, John Doe Sgt. 16, and John/Jane Doe Medical Staff 7 are DISMISSED with prejudice.
Bentz now proceeds on the following claims:
Count One: Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to medical needs claim against Defendants Monjie, Threadgill, Lang, Kulis, Waller, Little, Westfall, Rogers, Mears, Moldenhauer, Marshall, Shah, Hawkins, Siddiqui, Lafone, and Wexford for failing to adequately address the injuries that Bentz sustained on May 11, 2014 and the chronic pain he continues to experience.
Count Three: First Amendment retaliation claim against Mears and Lang for refusing to provide Bentz with medical care in retaliation for his filing lawsuits.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
