Brown v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc et al

Filing 45

ORDER ADOPTING 41 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION and DENYING 17 MOTION for Summary Judgment for Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies filed by Kim Clevy and Dana Arnold. The Court GRANTS 42 MOTION to Amend/Correct filed by James Brown and DIRE CTS the Clerk of Court to modify the Court's docket. The Court GRANTS 38 MOTION to Reset Discovery and Dispositive Motion Deadlines filed by Kim Clevy and Dana Arnold: Discovery is due by 11/15/2010 and Dispositive Motions are due by 12/15/2010. The Court DENIES as moot 36 MOTION for Subpoena's to Disclose for Potential Evidence in Discovery Request filed by James Brown. Signed by Judge G. Patrick Murphy on 9/8/2010. (ssd)

-DGW Brown v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc et al

Doc. 45

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS JAMES BROWN, Plaintiff, vs. DANA RENEE DARNOLD KIMBERLEY J. CLEVY, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) and ) ) ) )

CIVIL NO. 09-240-GPM

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
MURPHY, District Judge: This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson (Doc. 41), recommending that the motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies filed by Defendants Darnold and Clevy (Doc. 17) be denied. The Report and Recommendation was entered on August 17, 2010. No timely objections have been filed. In accordance with the dictates of Pavey v. Conley, 544 F.3d 739 (7th Cir. 2008), Magistrate Judge Wilkerson held a hearing on Defendants' motion challenging whether Plaintiff exhausted his administrative remedies (see Doc. 31). Following the Pavey hearing, Magistrate Judge Wilkerson issued the Report and Recommendation currently before this Court. Where timely objections are filed, this Court must undertake a de novo review of the Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), (C); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b); SDIL-LR 73.1(b); Harper v. City of Chicago Heights, 824 F. Supp. 786, 788 (N.D. Ill. 1993); see also Govas v. Page 1 of 3

Dockets.Justia.com

Chalmers, 965 F.2d 298, 301 (7th Cir. 1992). The Court "may accept, reject or modify the magistrate judge's recommended decision." Harper, 824 F. Supp. at 788. In making this determination, the Court must look at all of the evidence contained in the record and "give `fresh consideration to those issues to which specific objections have been made.'" Id., quoting 12 Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 3076.8, at p. 55 (1st ed. 1973) (1992 Pocket Part). However, where neither timely nor specific objections to the Report and Recommendation are made, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), this Court need not conduct a de novo review of the Report and Recommendation. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Wilkerson's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 41),1 and Defendants' motion for summary judgment based on exhaustion of administrative remedies (Doc. 17) is DENIED. Several additional motions are pending and are ready for ruling. First, Plaintiff moves to correct the spelling of Defendant Dana Darnold's name; this motion (Doc. 42) is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to modify the Court's docket to reflect Defendants' names as set forth in Plaintiff's supplement to the complaint filed on July 20, 2010 (Doc. 40): Dana Renee Darnold and Kimberley J. Clevy. Defendants filed a motion to reset the discovery and dispositive motion deadlines 60 days after the Court disposes of the motion for summary judgment; this motion (Doc. 38) is GRANTED. The discovery deadline is extended to November 15, 2010, and the dispositive motion deadline is extended to December 15, 2010. Finally, Plaintiff filed a pro se motion seeking disclosure of certain discovery materials (Doc. 36). Plaintiff recently was appointed counsel in this

While a de novo review is not required, the Court fully agrees with the findings, analysis, and conclusions of Magistrate Judge Wilkerson. Page 2 of 3

1

case (see Doc. 43), and the discovery deadline now has been extended. Accordingly, the motion (Doc. 36) is DENIED as moot. Plaintiff is instructed that all further filings shall be filed by appointed counsel. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: 09/08/10 s/ ZA ctàÜ|v~ `âÜÑ{ç G. PATRICK MURPHY United States District Judge

Page 3 of 3