Summary
finding that the plaintiff's claim for unpaid wages was moot because the plaintiff had received payment in full of the remedy sought and dismissing the claim due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction
Summary of this case from Balderson v. Lincare Inc.Opinion
Case No. 13-1168
12-16-2014
JAMES HORNER, Plaintiff, v. ELM LOCATING & UTILITY SERVICES, Defendant.
ORDER
On November 18, 2014, a Report & Recommendation was filed by Magistrate Judge Tom Schanzle-Haskins in the above captioned case. More than fourteen (14) 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 unlawful employment discrimination. Defendant moved to dismiss Count III of the Complaint, arguing that the claim asserted in that count is moot as a result of the fact that Plaintiff has been paid the amount alleged to have been wrongfully withheld under the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. The Court concurs with the Magistrate Judge's detailed discussion and recommendation.
Accordingly, the Court now adopts the Report & Recommendation [49] of the Magistrate Judge in its entirety. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Count III [47] is GRANTED. Count III of the Complaint is DISMISSED. This matter is again REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Schanzle-Haskins for further proceedings.
ENTERED this 16th day of December, 2014.
s/ James E. Shadid
James E. Shadid
Chief United States District Judge