Lara v. Canadian National Illinois Central

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
DANIELLE LARA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CANADIAN NATIONAL ILLINOIS
CENTRAL,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 24-cv-1241-SMY
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
YANDLE, District Judge:
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“Report”) of United
States Magistrate Judge Gilbert C. Sison (Doc. 60), recommending the dismissal of Plaintiff’s
Complaint. 	Plaintiff has not filed an objection to Judge Sison’s Report. 	For the following
reasons, Judge Sison’s Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED.
When neither timely nor specific objections to a Report and Recommendation are made,
the Court need not conduct a de novo review of the Report. 	See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140
(1985). 	Instead, the Court reviews the Report for clear error. 	Johnson v. Zema Systems Corp.,
170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999). The Court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part,
the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Here,
after a thorough review of the record, Judge Sison recommends that Plaintiff’s case be dismissed
as a sanction for her failure to prosecute, failure to participate in discovery, and failure to comply
with court orders (Doc. 60).
On September 5, 2025, the Court referred Defendant’s motion to compel discovery to
Judge Sison (Doc. 55). 	Subsequently, on September 8, 2025, the Court granted Defendant’s
Case 3:24-cv-01241-SMY Document 61 Filed 12/01/25 Page 1 of 2 Page ID
#<pageID>

2
motion to extend discovery and reminded Plaintiff that failure to participate in discovery could
result in the dismissal of the case (Doc. 56). On October 16, 2025, Plaintiff failed to appear for
the hearing on the motion to compel (Doc. 58). On the same day, Judge Sison issued an Order to
Show Cause, directing Plaintiff to show cause by November 6, 2025 why she failed to respond to
the motion and why she failed to attend the hearing (Doc. 59). 	The Order also warned that
failure to respond may result in the dismissal of the case (Id.). Plaintiff again did not respond.
The Court finds no clear error in Judge Sison’s findings, analysis and conclusions, and
adopts his Report and Recommendation in its entirety. 	Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Complaint is
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Defendant’s Motion to Compel (Doc. 52) is DENIED as
MOOT. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: December 1, 2025
STACI M. YANDLE
United States District Judge
Case 3:24-cv-01241-SMY Document 61 Filed 12/01/25 Page 2 of 2 Page ID
#<pageID>