Skip to content.
About GPO   |   Newsroom/Media   |   Congressional Relations   |   Inspector General   |   Careers   |   Contact   |   askGPO   |   Help  
 

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

16-50271 - Lottie v. Riportella et al


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
16-50271 - Lottie v. Riportella et al
March 27, 2018
PDF | More
Corp., 882 F.2d 258, 260 (7th Cir. 1989). Signed by the Honorable Iain D. Johnston on 3/27/2018: Mailed notice(yxp, )ORDER, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS; On February 15, 2018, the Court ordered Plaintiff, who is no longer incarcerated, to submit an updated in forma pauperis (IFP) application showing his current financial and employment status 34. Plaintiff was warned that failure to comply with the Courts order by March 15, 2018 would result in dismissal of this action. [Id.] As of the date of this order, Plaintiff has not complied. Additionally, there is nothing on the docket suggesting that Plaintiff did not receive the Courts February 15, 2018 order (which was sent to him at his last known address at 715 Alliance Avenue, Rockford, IL 61102), and Plaintiff has not otherwise communicated with the Court since then. Accordingly, it is this Courts Report and Recommendation that the case be dismissed for want of prosecution. Any objection to this Report and Recommendation must be filed by April 10, 2018. Failure to object may constitute a waiver of objection on appeal. See Provident Bank v. Manor Steel
April 12, 2018
PDF | More
ORDER Adopting Report and Recommendations signed by the Honorable Philip G. Reinhard on 4/12/2018: This matter comes before the court on the Order, Report and Recommendations ("R & R") 39 of Magistrate Judge Johnston recommending that the court dismiss this case for want of prosecution. The court may accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations of the magistrate judge in a report and recommendation. See FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3). The court must review de novo the portions of the report to which objections are made. Id. "If no objection or only partial objection is made, the district court judge reviews those unobjected portions for clear error." Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999). In this case, the court has received no objections to the R & R (see 39, showing that objections were due by 4/10/18). The court has reviewed the record in this case and finds that the March 27, 2018 R & R is not clearly erroneous. Accordingly, the court adopts in its entirety Judge Johnston's R & R. Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute. Final judgment will enter. Mailed notice (kms)