Wyatt v. Illinois State Police Department et al, No. 3:2012cv03355 - Document 5 (C.D. Ill. 2013)
Court Description: OPINION: The Report and Recommendation (d/e 4 ) is ACCEPTED by this Court. Plaintiff's Complaint (d/e 1 ) is DISMISSED for want of prosecution. Plaintiff's Application (d/e 2 ) is DENIED AS MOOT. SEE WRITTEN OPINION. Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 2/12/2013. (MJ, ilcd)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
E-FILED Tuesday, 12 February, 2013 02:58:20 PM Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS SPRINGFIELD DIVISION ANTHONY LATEE WYATT, Plaintiff, v. ILLINOIS STATE POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 12-3355 OPINION SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, U.S. District Judge: On January 2, 2013, Magistrate Judge Byron G. Cudmore entered an order directing Plaintiff to file a complete complaint setting forth all of his claims and to file it as his First Amended Complaint. See d/e 3. Magistrate Judge Cudmore also directed Plaintiff to supplement his Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Application) (d/e 2) since Plaintiff had not provided any of his financial information. Plaintiff has neither filed his First Amended Complaint or supplemented his Application as ordered by Judge Page 1 of 3 Cudmore. This matter is now before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (d/e 4) entered by Magistrate Judge Cudmore on January 25, 2013, recommending that this Court dismiss Plaintiff s Complaint (d/e 1) for want of prosecution. Neither party filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation within fourteen (14) days of the entry of the Report and Recommendation. See 28 U.S.C. ยง 636(b)(1). Thus, this Court accepts the Report and Recommendation. See Schur v. L.A. Weight Loss Centers, Inc., 577 F.3d 752, 760 (7th Cir. 2009) ( If no party objects to the magistrate judge s action, the district judge may simply accept it. ) IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT: (1) The Report and Recommendation (d/e 4) is ACCEPTED by this Court; (2) Plaintiff s Complaint (d/e 1) is DISMISSED for want of prosecution. (3) Plaintiff s Application (d/e 2) is DENIED AS MOOT. Page 2 of 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. ENTERED: February 12, 2013 FOR THE COURT: s/ Sue E. Myerscough SUE E. MYERSCOUGH UNITED STATE DISTRICT JUDGE Page 3 of 3
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
