Reona Jean Daly

United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois magistrate 6 signed orders read

How Judge Daly decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

What persuades

On a failure-to-prosecute motion she weighs the plaintiff's demonstrated intent to proceed: cooperation in discovery and clear signals of intent defeat the motion even after a missed deadline (Hileman), but ignoring multiple orders and a show-cause warning yields dismissal WITH prejudice (Jeffries).

“although Hileman failed to meet the deadline to file his notice to proceed pro se, 'he has made clear to the Court that he intends to proceed with the case and is cooperating in the discovery process'”

Procedural preferences

Confirms subject-matter jurisdiction before reaching the merits/disposition, including in default/removal postures (disregards fictitious defendants' citizenship under 1441(b); evaluates amount-in-controversy on record evidence).

“The undersigned is satisfied that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction to determine Plaintiff's case. 28 U.S.C. 1332(a)(1).”

Holds Rule 56 movants -- including pro se litigants -- to the record-citation requirement; pro se status earns liberal construction but not an exemption from Rule 56(c).

“The Court liberally construes pleadings filed by pro se litigants, but Plaintiff must still follow this rule.”

Resolves prisoner exhaustion disputes on the Pavey track -- holds an evidentiary hearing before recommending summary judgment for failure to exhaust (dismissal without prejudice).

“recommending, after holding an evidentiary hearing, that the Court grant the defendants' motion for summary judgment ... and dismiss ... for failure to exhaust administrative remedies”

Cautions

Sets a high bar for inherent-authority sanctions: requires a finding of bad faith, and will steer parties to Rule 11 for litigation-conduct complaints rather than penalize mere haste/imprecision.

“Any sanctions imposed pursuant to the court's inherent authority must be premised on a finding of bad faith ... such hastiness would have been better addressed by way of a Rule 11 motion for sanctions”

Magistrate judge: her dispositive outcomes are RECOMMENDATIONS subject to district-judge review. Only 6 classified orders -- illustrative, never a rate. Where an R&R drew no objection, the DJ reviews only for clear error.

Motion outcomes

Counted from classified signed orders only. Percentages are shown only where the sample is large enough to be meaningful; smaller samples are reported as raw counts.

Summary judgment
N = 2
Granted: 1Denied: 1 counts only
Motions to dismiss
N = 2
Granted: 1Denied: 1 counts only
Motion for sanctions
N = 1
Denied: 1 counts only
Motions to remand
N = 1
Denied: 1 counts only

A "1 of 1" is one ruling, not a tendency. Treat small samples as illustrative, not predictive.

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

McKenney v. Germain, et al.
3:18-cv-01140-JPG-RJD · 2019-07-19
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“ADOPTS the Report in its entirety (Doc. 31); GRANTS the defendants' motion for summary judgment (Doc. 22); DISMISSES McKenney's claims in this case without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies”

Mitchell v. Murray Energy Corp., et al.
3:17-cv-00444-NJR-RJD · 2018-01-09
Motion for sanctions (plaintiff) Denied

“The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 31) is ADOPTED in its entirety, and Plaintiff's motion for sanctions (Doc. 26) is DENIED.”

Sardon v. Tran, D.M.D., et al.
3:24-cv-01523-RJD · 2025-07-24
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.”

Hileman v. Ehler, et al.
3:18-cv-00184-NJR-RJD · 2019-04-08
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution (Doc. 24) is DENIED.”

Jeffries v. Penn-Star Insurance Co., et al.
3:22-cv-02853-RJD · 2024-08-13
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“it is RECOMMENDED that this case be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for Plaintiff's failure to prosecute.”

Angus v. DG Retail, LLC (d/b/a Dollar General), et al.
3:24-cv-00536-RJD-SMY · 2024-12-16
Motions to remand (plaintiff) Denied

“the Court finds no clear error in Judge Daly's findings, analysis and conclusions, and adopts her Report and Recommendation in its entirety. ... Plaintiff's motion to remand (Doc. 12) is DENIED.”