UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

MONICA D. NASH,

Plaintiff, Case No. 24-CV-890-JPS-JPS v.

MILWAUKEE COUNTY, SHAWN ORDER BACICH, DENITA BALL, THEODORE CHISHOLM, BRENT SMOOT, EARNELL LUCAS, DETECTIVE MITCHELL GOTTSCHALK, and RON LAGOSH,

Defendants.

Now before the Court is Magistrate Judge William E. Duffin’s report and recommendation recommending that Plaintiff Monica D. Nash’s (“Plaintiff”) case be dismissed as duplicative of another that Plaintiff filed just three months prior. ECF No. 7 at 4 (citing Nash v. Bacich et al., 24-CV- 442-JPS (E.D. Wis.) (“Case No. 24-CV-442”)). In the instant suit, Plaintiff sues the same group of Defendants regarding the same allegations as in Case No. 24-CV-442. Id. As Magistrate Judge Duffin noted, filing multiple lawsuits against the same defendants regarding the same allegations and events is “inefficient,” “creates the risk of inconsistent judgments,” and “opens the door to abuses, such as judge shopping.” Id. (citing Civ. L.R. 41(e)). Courts may accordingly dismiss such duplicative lawsuits. Id. (citing McReynolds v. Merrill Lynch & Co.,

(7th Cir. 2012) and Hye- Young Park v. Bd. of Trs. of the Univ. of Ill., No. 18-CV-2090,

, at *3-4 (C.D. Ill. May 7, 2018)). Magistrate Judge Duffin therefore recommended that this case be dismissed. Id. at 5. Magistrate Judge Duffin also noted that any written objection to his recommendation “shall be filed within fourteen days of thfe] recommendation” and that “[flailure to timely object waives a party’s right to review.” Id. (citing

(b)(1)(B) and (C) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2)). Plaintiff has not timely objected. In light of the lack of timely objection, and seeing no independent reason to depart from Magistrate Judge Duffin’s recommendation, the Court will adopt it and dismiss this case. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge William E. Duffin’s report and recommendation, ECF No. 7, be and the same is hereby ADOPTED; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Monica D. Nash’s motion for e-filing privileges, ECF No. 5, be and the same is hereby DENIED as moot; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case be and the same is hereby DISMISSED. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly. Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 12th day of August, 2024. \ \ RY fee J.J Stach ueller U.S» Disttict Judge

‘Plaintiff moved for e-filing privileges, ECF No. 5, but the pendency of that motion did not toll her objections period.

Page 2 of 2