rriday, 51 Marcn, 2UL5 □□□□□□□□ Clerk, U.S. District Court, IL IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS SPRINGFIELD DIVISION TRACEY M. GRAGG, ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 21-3169 ) SANGAMON COUNTY ANIMAL ) CONTROL, ) Defendant. ) ORDER COLLEEN R. LAWLESS, United States District Judge: In a Report and Recommendation [d/e 22] entered on March 13, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Karen L. McNaught recommended that this action be dismissed due to pro se Plaintiff Tracey M. Gragg’s failure to prosecute. Pursuant to Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff was required to file any objections by March 27, 2023. Plaintiff did not file any objections. Judge McNaught’s Report and Recommendation provides that Plaintiff failed to appear at a February 25, 2022, scheduling conference and at a January 27, 2023, hearing on Defendant Sangamon County Animal Control’s Motion to Compel [d/e 20]. In the January 4, 2023 Text Order

setting the January 27, 2023 hearing, Judge McNaught notified Plaintiff that

appearance at the hearing was mandatory and Plaintiff’s failure to appear could result in sanctions up to and including dismissal of the action. When Plaintiff did not appear at the January 27, 2023 hearing, the Court rescheduled the hearing on February 17, 2023, after the Court was unable to confirm that Plaintiff had received notice of the previously scheduled hearing. See Text Orders of 1/27/2023 and 1/30/2023. The Report and Recommendation states that Plaintiff was sent copies in separate mailings of the docket entries setting the hearing and notifying Plaintiff that her appearance was mandatory and that Plaintiff's failure to appear could result in sanctions up to and including dismissal of the action. The Plaintiff did not appear on February 17, 2023, and did not contact the Court or move to continue the hearing. The Court granted Defendant’s Motion to Compel and ordered Plaintiff to comply with discovery requests within fourteen days. Plaintiff

was also directed to acknowledge compliance with the Court’s Order. See D/E 21. The Court further ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the action should not not be dismissed for want of prosecution or sanctions should not

be imposed due to Plaintiff's noncompliance. The Plaintiff did not respond within fourteen days as directed. The Plaintiff received multiple warnings that disobedience of the Court's rulings could result in dismissal. Additionally, Plaintiff is aware of the potential consequences of noncompliance with this Court’s Orders from previous litigation in the Central District of Illinois. Plaintiff has been a plaintiff in at least six other cases in this district since 2010 that were dismissed for want of prosecution. Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that an action may be dismissed for failure to prosecute or disobedience of a Court Order. Dismissal is also appropriate under Rule 37(b)(2) for Plaintiff's failure

to engage in the discovery process. Because Plaintiff has not complied with discovery requirements, the Defendant lacks information necessary to defend this action. Judge McNaught recommends as the appropriate sanction that Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed without prejudice for want of prosecution and that Plaintiff may be allowed to refile only after paying the cost of Defendant's efforts to secure compliance with its discovery requests, including attorney’s fees.

Objections to the Report and Recommendation were due on or before March 27, 2023. Plaintiff did not file objections. The district court reviews de novo any part of a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation to which a specific written objection has been made. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b);

(b)(1). If no objection or only partial objection is made, the district judge reviews those unobjected portions for clear error. See Johnson v. Zema Systems Corp.,

(7th Cir. 1999). After reviewing the record, the Report and Recommendation, and the applicable law, the Court finds no clear error in Judge McNaught’s Report and Recommendation. Therefore, the Court ACCEPTS United States Magistrate Judge McNaught’s Report and Recommendation [d/e 22]. Plaintiff Tracey M. Gragg’s Complaint [d/e 1] is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for want of prosecution. The final pretrial conference set on April 3, 2023, and jury trial setting on April 18, 2023, are VACATED.

ENTER: March 31, 2023 / A UA 2 [/ CollegieR Lawless United States District Judge