Grove v. Alexander

District Court, C.D. Illinois

Grove v. Alexander

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS URBANA DIVISION

LARRY GROVE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 18-cv-2046 ) RODNEY ALEXANDER, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) )

O R D E R

A Report and Recommendation (#85) was filed by Magistrate Judge Eric I. Long in the above cause on June 18, 2020. On that same date, a copy of the Report and Recommendation was sent to the parties via the court’s ECF system. That Report and Recommendation concerns Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (#78) and Motion to Join and Adopt (#79), and Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem Allegations as Admitted (#82). Regarding Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (#78) and Motion to Join and Adopt (#79), Judge Long recommended those motions be granted in part and denied in part. Specifically, Judge Long recommended that while a sanction for Plaintiff’s dilatory tactics was warranted, the draconian sanction of dismissal was not yet warranted. Instead, Judge Long recommended Defendants be given the opportunity to complete their discovery process and disclose expert witnesses, but that Plaintiff be barred from conducting any further discovery, including disclosing expert witnesses. Judge Long further recommended that Defendant be required to submit a proposed discovery schedule within 14 days of the entry of this court’s ruling on the

Report and Recommendation, constructed to allow Defendants adequate time to complete their discovery without regard for allotting time for Plaintiff to perform any additional discovery. Regarding Plaintiff’s Motion (#82), Judge Long recommended that motion be denied. The parties were instructed to file any objections to the Report and

Recommendation within fourteen days of being served with a copy of it. The parties were also informed that failure to object would constitute a waiver of objections on appeal. See Video Views, Inc. v. Studio 21, Ltd.,

797 F.2d 538, 539

(7th Cir. 1986). The time to object to Magistrate Judge Long’s Report and Recommendation has passed, and no party filed an objection. Therefore, following this court’s de novo

review of the Report and Recommendation and the reasons for it, this court agrees with and accepts Magistrate Judge Long’s Report and Recommendation (#85). This court agrees that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (#78) and Motion to Join and Adopt (#79) should be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as Judge Long recommended, and that Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem Allegations as Admitted (#82) should be DENIED.

IT IS THEREFOR ORDERED THAT: (1) The Report and Recommendation (#85) is ACCEPTED by this court. (2) Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (#78) and Motion to Join and Adopt (#79) are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiff is BARRED from conducting any further discovery, including disclosure of any expert witnesses. Defendants

shall, within 14 days of the entry of this order, submit a discovery schedule constructed to allow Defendants adequate time to complete their discovery without regard for allotting time for Plaintiff to perform any additional discovery. (3) Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem Allegations as Admitted (#82) is DENIED. ENTERED this 14th day of July, 2020

s/ Colin Stirling Bruce COLIN S. BRUCE U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

Reference

Status
Unknown