Simkus v. United Airlines, No. 1:2010cv05274 - Document 115 (N.D. Ill. 2013)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Written by the Honorable Gary Feinerman on 1/11/2013.Mailed notice.(jlj)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Simkus v. United Airlines Doc. 115 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION PAUL SIMKUS, Plaintiff, vs. UNITED AIR LINES, INC., Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 10 C 5274 Judge Feinerman MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Paul Simkus brought this suit against his employer, United Air Lines, Inc., alleging discrimination and retaliation in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. Simkus filed a similar suit several months later. Simkus v. United Air Lines, Inc., No. C 2165 (N.D. Ill. filed Mar. 29, 2011). The second suit was dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Simkus v. United Air Lines, Inc., 2012 WL 3133603 (N.D. Ill. July 31, 2012). In the meantime, discovery proceeded in the present suit under the active supervision of Magistrate Judge Mason. Docs. 14, 15, 19, 25-26, 28-29, 34, 44-46, 49-50, 53, 56, 58-59, 64-67, 73, 75, 80, 86, 88, 90-91, 96. United ultimately moved to dismiss this suit for want of prosecution due to what United said were Simkus’s delays, litigation misconduct, and repeated failures to comply with his discovery obligations and court orders. Docs. 101-102. Given Magistrate Judge Mason’s familiarity with the issues raised by United’s motion, the court referred the motion to him for a Report and Recommendation. Doc. 105. -1- Dockets.Justia.com Magistrate Judge Mason issued a detailed Report and Recommendation recommending that the case be dismissed for want of prosecution. Docs. 111-112. The Report and Recommendation warned Simkus regarding the deadline for filing objections with the district judge and the consequences of failing to object: “Specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation may be served and filed within fourteen (14) days from the date that this order is served. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. Failure to file objections with the District Court within the specified time will result in a waiver of the right to appeal all findings, factual and legal, made by this Court in the Report and Recommendation. Lorentzen v. Anderson Pest Control, 64 F.3d 327, 330 (7th Cir. 1995).” Doc. 112 at 11. The minute order accompanying the Report and Recommendation did so as well, expressly referencing the deadline of December 20, 2012, for filing objections: “Written objections to this Report and Recommendation may be served and filed by 12/20/12. Failure to file objections with the District Court within the specified time will result in a waiver of the right to appeal all findings, factual and legal, made by this Court in the Report and Recommendation.” Doc. 111. It is now January 11, 2013, over three weeks past the deadline, and Simkus has not filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. The rule governing this situation is as follows: “If no party objects to the magistrate judge’s action, the district judge may simply accept it. But the district judge remains the final authority in the case, and he may reconsider sua sponte any matter determined by a magistrate judge. Thus, although the district judge must make an independent determination of a magistrate judge’s order upon objection, he is not precluded from reviewing a magistrate judge’s order to which a party did not object.” Schur v. L.A. Weight Loss Ctrs., Inc., 577 F.3d 752, 760 (7th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). The court exercises its discretion to simply accept the Report and Recommendation. See Miller v. Portfolio Recovery -2- Assocs., LLC, 2012 WL 1714253 (C.D. Ill. May 15, 2012). That said, the circumstances of this case amply justify Magistrate Judge Mason’s recommended disposition. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation is accepted and the case is dismissed with prejudice for want of prosecution. January 11, 2013 United States District Judge -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.
