Wells Sr v. Illinois Department of Corrections et al

Filing 47

ORDER Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 10/5/2012. Accordingly, the Court now adopts the Report & Recommendation 42 of the Magistrate Judge in its entirety. Plaintiffs Emergency Motion for a Restraining Order/Injunction is DENIED 33 .(cc:pla) (RP, ilcd)

E-FILED

Friday, 05 October, 2012 11:16:56 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
PEORIA DIVISION

RONALD WELLS, SR.,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
MARK SPENCER, MICHELLE CLARK, )
AUGUSTIN TWAGLIMANA, and
)
PAULA RICH,
)
)
Defendants.
)

Case No. 11-1029

ORDER
On September 11, 2012, a Report & Recommendation was filed by Magistrate Judge
John A. Gorman in the above captioned case. More than fourteen (14) days have elapsed since
the filing of the Report & Recommendation, and no objections have been made. See 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b); Lockert v. Faulkner, 843 F.2d 1015 (7th Cir. 1988); and Video
Views, Inc. v. Studio 21, Ltd., 797 F.2d 538, 539 (7th Cir. 1986). As the parties failed to present
timely objections, any such objections have been waived. Id.
The relevant procedural history is sufficiently set forth in the comprehensive Report &
Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. Suffice it to say that Plaintiff brought his Emergency
Motion for a Restraining Order/Injunction stating that Pontiac Correctional Center officials
refused to return him to Protective Custody after he erroneously served time in segregation, that
his current placement in “protective custody kickout” interferes with his ability to litigate this
and other proceedings, and that his placement in “protective custody kickout” exposes him to
1

potential violence by other inmates who recognize him as the person convicted of the murder of
a well known gang member.

The Magistrate Judge considered Plaintiff’s allegations, the

exhibits he attached in support of his motion for emergency injunctive relief, and the parties’
arguments made during September 5, 2012 hearing, before concluding that it is clear that
Plaintiff has improperly sought prospective injunctive relief for events that already transpired,
that he is simply unhappy with the extent of his access to the law library while in “protective
custody kickout,” and that he otherwise has failed to meet his burden in order to be entitled to
emergency injunctive relief.

The Court concurs with the recommendation that Plaintiff’s

Emergency Motion for a Restraining Order/Injunction be denied for the reasons stated.
Accordingly, the Court now adopts the Report & Recommendation [d/e 42] of the
Magistrate Judge in its entirety. Plaintiffs Emergency Motion for a Restraining Order/Injunction
is DENIED [d/e 33].

ENTERED this 5th day of October, 2012.
s/ Michael M. Mihm
___________________________________
MICHAEL M. MIHM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2