Opinion
Case No. 07-1326.
March 18, 2008
ORDER
On February 22, 2008, 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 to the Report Recommendation 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 and factual background is sufficiently set forth in the comprehensive Report Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. Suffice it to say that Plaintiff was an eligible participant in the Plan and claims that he has a right under the Plan to receive his retirement benefits in a lump sum. Defendant refused to distribute a lump sum, and this action followed. The Court concurs with the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge that Plaintiff has met his burden under federal notice pleading and that he is entitled to proceed to have his claims resolved on the merits.
Accordingly, the Court now adopts the Report Recommendation [#21] of the Magistrate Judge in its entirety. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [#9] is DENIED.