From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hicks v. United States

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS PEORIA DIVISION
Oct 7, 2011
No. 11-CV-1129 (C.D. Ill. Oct. 7, 2011)

Opinion

No. 11-CV-1129

10-07-2011

CHRISTOPHER M. HICKS, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant.


REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

BYRON G. CUDMORE, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE:

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant United States of America's Motion to Dismiss (d/e 10) (Motion). The Motion is referred to this Court for a Report and Recommendation. For the reasons set forth below, the Court recommends that the Motion should be ALLOWED.

The United States filed this Motion on July 27, 2011. The Motion was served by mail on that date. Motion, Certificate of Service. Hicks was required to respond to the Motion within fourteen days or else the Court would presume that he had no objection to the Motion. Local Rule 7.1((B)(2). Hicks had three additional days to respond because the Motion was served by mail. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(C) and 6(d). The due date for his response would have been Saturday, August 13, 2011. When the due date falls on a Saturday, however, the due date is extended to the first day thereafter that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(1)(C). Hicks response was, thus, due on Monday August 15, 2011. No response was filed.

This Court, sua sponte, gave Hicks additional time, until September 2, 2011, to file a response, and warned Hicks that if a timely response was not filed, the Motion would be allowed. Text Order entered August 19, 2011. Hicks did not file a response. Since September 2, 2011, the Court has addressed other matters on the Court's docket and has not acted on the Motion. This delay has effectively given Hicks more than a month of additional time after September 2, 2011, to file a response, but he has not. The Court, therefore, presumes that Hicks has no objection to the Motion and recommends that the Motion should be allowed. Local Rule 7.1(B)(2).

In the alternative, the Court sua sponte recommends that this matter be dismissed for want of prosecution due to the inaction of Plaintiff in prosecuting his civil case.

WHEREFORE, this Court recommends that Defendant United States of America's Motion to Dismiss (d/e 10) should be allowed or that the matter be dismissed for want of prosecution.

The parties are advised that any objection to this Report and Recommendation must be filed in writing with the Clerk of the Court within fourteen days after service of this Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Failure to file a timely objection will constitute a waiver of objections on appeal. See Video Views, Inc. v. Studio 21, Ltd., 797 F.2d 538, 539 (7th Cir. 1986). See Local Rule 72.2.

BYRON G. CUDMORE

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

Hicks v. United States

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS PEORIA DIVISION
Oct 7, 2011
No. 11-CV-1129 (C.D. Ill. Oct. 7, 2011)
Case details for

Hicks v. United States

Case Details

Full title:CHRISTOPHER M. HICKS, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS PEORIA DIVISION

Date published: Oct 7, 2011

Citations

No. 11-CV-1129 (C.D. Ill. Oct. 7, 2011)