Opinion
Case No. 09-1064.
August 14, 2009
ORDER
On July 15, 2009, a Report Recommendation was filed by Magistrate Judge Byron G. Cudmore in the above captioned case. More than ten (10) days have elapsed since the filing of the Report Recommendation, and no objections have been made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); Lockert v. Faulkner, 843 F.2d 1015 (7th Cir. 1988); and Video Views, Inc. v. Studio 21, Ltd., 797 F.2d 538, 539 (7th Cir. 1986). As the parties failed to present timely objections, any such objections have been waived. Id.
The relevant procedural history is sufficiently set forth in the comprehensive Report Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. Suffice it to say that Plaintiff has brought this litigation alleging that he was the victim of racial discrimination and retaliation. The Court concurs with the recommendation that the record presently before the Court does not establish that arbitration proceedings require dismissal of this case, that Plaintiff has alleged an adverse employment action, and that there is no basis for finding that Plaintiff did not file a timely charge of discrimination. The City apparently concurs, as it has now filed its Answer to the Complaint.
Accordingly, the Court now adopts the Report Recommendation [#10] of the Magistrate Judge in its entirety. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [#5] is DENIED, and this matter is referred to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.