Written objections to any finding of fact, conclusion of law, or the recommendation for
disposition of this matter must be filed with the Honorable Joan B. Gottschall within ten (10)
days after service of this Report and Recommendation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Failure to
object will constitute a waiver of objections on appcal.

Copies have becn mailed to:

STEPHEN R. AYRES, Esq. REX L. SESSIONS, Esq.

BeJlande, Cheely, O'Flaherty, Sargis KEVIN M. CLOUTIER, Esq.
& Ayres Winston & Strawn, L.L.P.

19 South LaSalle Street 35 West Wacker Drive

Suite 1203 Chicago, Il. 60601

Chicago, IL. 60603

Attorney for Plaintiff Attorneys for Defendant



Rune Order lin (0007)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge
or Magistrate Judge

Joan B. Gottschall

Sitting Judge if Other
than Assigned Judge

Martin C. Ashman

CASE NUMBER 03 C 7249 DATE 7/6/2004
CASE Dawn L. Behrens vs. Silliker Laboratories, Inc.
TITLE
[ln the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, c.f, plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature
MOTION: of the motion being presented.
DOCKET ENTRY:
() o Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.}

(2) a Brief in support of motion due _

(3) o Answer brief to motion due. . Reply to answer brief due___

@ a Ruling/Tearing on set for at

(5) Oo Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on set for at _

(6) qo Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [sct for/re-set for] on setfor at :

(7) aa] Trial{set for/re-set for]on at

(8) oO (Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] hcld/continued to at

(9) Oo ‘This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agrcement/pursuant to}

OFRCP4(n) O Local Rule 41.1 COFRCP41(a)(1) [1 FRCP41(a)(2).

ao) «=x [Other docket entry] Report and recommendation recommending that plaintiff's case be dismissed
with prejudice for want of prosccution and that defendant’s counterclaim be dismissed with prejudice is
hereby entered of record. All matters relating to the referral of this action having been resolved, the case
is returned to the assigned judge.

dl) wf [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]

No notices required, advised in open court.
3

No notices d.
lo notices require umber of noes

oY | Notices mailed by judge’s staff.

Notified counsel by telephone

Docketing to mail natives.

Mail AO 450 form,
a | Copy lu judge/fmagicnavepudger

wisia "$0

ae
WAS

i

yyned |

courtroom

deputy's
initials

greg Hd 9° TAC AOU

any

= 1
LU Batehihnet rcbbavta in

central Clerk’s Office

‘mailing deputy initiala



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION
DAWN L, BEHRENS, ) 204
) Case No. 03 C 7249 AS oT
Plaintiff, )
) Judge Joan B. Gottschall
v. )
) Magistrate Judge
SILLIKER LABORATORIES, INC., ) Martin C, Ashman
)
Defendant, )

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This case originally came before the Court on Defendant's motion to compel production
of documents. The motion was granted, but Plaintiff failed to respond. Plaintiff has also failed
to appear for status hearings. For the following reasons, the Court finds that Plaintiff's case
should be dismissed for want of prosecution.

Plaintiff Dawn L. Behrens brought suit against Defendant Silliker Laboratories, Inc.,
alleging discrimination on the basis of disability in violation of the ADA and violation of ERISA.
On June 8, 2004, Defendant filed a motion to compel, sccking an order compelling Plaintiff to
respond to discovery requests that were over three months past due. The Court granted the
motion on June 15, 2004, and ordered Plaintiff to respond within fourteen days. The Court
informed Plaintiff in its order that a failure to respond may result in the dismissal of the lawsuit.
Plaintiff failed to respond. On June 30, 2004, the Court held a status hearing and ascertained that

Plaintiff had not responded to the outstanding discovery requests as ordered. Plaintiff has not

appeared in court to oppose the motion to compel nor to attend court at status hearings.



Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41, the court may dismiss an action for failure of
the plaintiff to prosecute or to comply with the rules or the court's orders, Dismissal of a casc "is
one of the tools available to district courts ‘to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of
cases.'" Williams v. Chic. Bd. of Edue., 155 F.3d 853, 857 (7th Cir, 1998) (quoting Link v.
Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630 (1962)). However, because dismissal is such a harsh
sanction, it "should be used ‘only in extreme situations, when there is a clear record of delay or
contumacious conduct, or when other less drastic sanctions have proven unavailing." /d.
(quoting Dunphy v. McKee, 134 F.3d 1297, 1299 (7th Cir. 1998) (citations omitted).

Plaintiff's actions cause us to reach the conclusion that this case should be dismissed for
failure to prosecute. Plaintiff has failed to answer discovery as required, even after this Court
entered an order that she must respond to the discovery. Plaintiff was warned that a failure to
respond would result in the dismissal of the case. Plaintiff has delayed and directly disregarded
this Court's order and has failed to attend status hearings. She has, by these omissions, indicated
her disinterest in her case.

Therefore, for the reasons discussed above, we recommend that Plaintiff's case be
dismissed with prejudice for want of prosecution. Additionally, we recommend that Defendant's

counterclaim be dismissed with prejudice.

~ Lean C Se.

MARTIN C. ASHMAN
Dated: July 6, 2004, United States Magistrate Judge