Shule v. Menard, Inc.

Full title: PATRICIA SHULE, Plaintiff, v. MENARD, INC., Defendant

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA HAMMOND DIVISION

Date published: Apr 5, 2019

CAUSE NO. 2:18-CV-401-JVB-JEM (N.D. Ind. Apr. 5, 2019)

Opinion

CAUSE NO. 2:18-CV-401-JVB-JEM

04-05-2019

PATRICIA SHULE, Plaintiff, v. MENARD, INC., Defendant

MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOHN E. MARTIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FINDINGS, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) & (C)

This matter is before the Court on a Motion to Dismiss [DE 17], filed by Plaintiff on March 20, 2019. On March 27, 2019, Judge Joseph S. Van Bokkelen entered an Order [DE 18] referring this matter to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for a report and recommendation on the instant motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). This Report constitutes the undersigned Magistrate Judge's combined proposed findings and recommendations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).

Plaintiff seeks to dismiss her lawsuit with prejudice. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 provides for dismissal with prejudice upon the filing of a "stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared." Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii),(B). However, only counsel for Plaintiff signed the instant Motion. For the reasons discussed at the February 27, 2019 hearing related to Plaintiff's capability to participate in the case, the Court recommends that the case should not yet be dismissed unless Plaintiff herself, and Defendant, by counsel, also sign the stipulation of dismissal.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court RECOMMENDS that the District Court DENY Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss [DE 17], with leave to refile a revised stipulation in the manner described above. This Report and Recommendation is submitted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the parties shall have fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this Recommendation to file written objections thereto with the Clerk of Court. The failure to file a timely objection will result in waiver of the right to challenge this Recommendation before either the District Court or the Court of Appeals. Willis v. Caterpillar, Inc., 199 F.3d 902, 904 (7th Cir. 1999); Hunger v. Leininger, 15 F.3d 664, 668 (7th Cir. 1994); Provident Bank v. Manor Steel Corp., 882 F.2d 258, 260-261 (7th Cir. 1989).

SO ORDERED this 5th day of April, 2019.

s/ John E. Martin

MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOHN E. MARTIN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT cc: All counsel of record