UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA HAMMOND DIVISION

JOVANTE JASHON MILES,

Plaintiff,

v. CAUSE NO.: 2:22-CV-71-TLS-JEM

NURSE TIERRA, et al.,

Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on a Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 110], filed by Magistrate Judge John E. Martin on April 3, 2025. The Court’s review of a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is governed by

(b)(1)(C), which provides as follows: Within fourteen days after being served with a copy, any party may serve and file written objections to such proposed findings and recommendations as provided by rules of court. A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made. A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The judge may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.

(b)(1)(C); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2) (“Within 14 days after being served with a copy of the recommended disposition, a party may serve and file specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations.”). Portions of a recommendation to which no party objects are reviewed for clear error. Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp.,

, 739 (7th Cir. 1999). Judge Martin gave the parties notice that they had fourteen days to file objections to his Report and Recommendation. No party has filed an objection, and the time to do so has passed. Judge Martin recommends dismissal of this lawsuit without prejudice based on an oral motion to dismiss this case made by Plaintiff Javonte Jashon Miles, proceeding pro se, at a hearing on April 3, 2025. Although the Defendants requested that this matter be dismissed with prejudice, as stated on the record, Judge Martin declined to recommend a dismissal with prejudice. The Court finds no clear error in Judge Martin’s recommendation for dismissal of this

case without prejudice. CONCLUSION Therefore, the Court hereby ACCEPTS the Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 110]. As a result, the Court GRANTS the Plaintiff’s oral Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 109] and DISMISSES this case without prejudice. The Court DENIES as moot the Defendants’ Motion to Compel [ECF No. 104]. Also, the Court DENIES as moot the Defendants’ Motion to Vacate Discovery Deadlines [ECF No. 111]. SO ORDERED on April 28, 2025.

s/ Theresa L. Springmann JUDGE THERESA L. SPRINGMANN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT