From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bielecki v. Union Pacific Railroad Company

United States District Court, C.D. Illinois, Urbana Division
Aug 19, 2008
Case No. 07-2244 (C.D. Ill. Aug. 19, 2008)

Opinion

Case No. 07-2244.

August 19, 2008


REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION


On July 9, 2008, Defendant Norfolk Southern Railway Company filed a Motion to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution (#16). Plaintiff has not filed a response. The Court has carefully reviewed the motion and attachments. It appears from the unrebutted assertions in the motion that Plaintiff has failed to participate in the litigation she initiated. Most of the deadlines set by the Court in its Discovery Order (#12) have expired. Plaintiff cannot be allowed to file suit and then not participate in discovery. Defendant should not be forced to attempt to try the case without the benefit of discovery.

Accordingly, the undersigned recommends pursuant to authority conferred by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) that the Motion to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution (#16) be GRANTED.

The parties are advised that any objection to this recommendation must be filed in writing with the Clerk within ten (10) working days after being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Failure to object will constitute a waiver of objections on appeal. Video Views, Inc. v. Studio 21, Ltd., 797 F.2d 538 (7th Cir. 1986).


Summaries of

Bielecki v. Union Pacific Railroad Company

United States District Court, C.D. Illinois, Urbana Division
Aug 19, 2008
Case No. 07-2244 (C.D. Ill. Aug. 19, 2008)
Case details for

Bielecki v. Union Pacific Railroad Company

Case Details

Full title:LINDA BIELECKI, Plaintiff, v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, a Delaware…

Court:United States District Court, C.D. Illinois, Urbana Division

Date published: Aug 19, 2008

Citations

Case No. 07-2244 (C.D. Ill. Aug. 19, 2008)