Thomas v. Randle et al

Filing 31

ORDER ADOPTING IN PART REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 30 Report and Recommendations, Grants in part and Denies in part 21 MOTION for Summary Judgment. Lt Jennings, Lt Ray, C/O Cooper and Lee Huston DISMISSED without prejudice. Signed by Judge Michael J. Reagan on 07/12/2011. (dkd )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
LAMONT THOMAS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
LT. SHELL, LT. RAY, LEE HUSTON,
LT. JENNINGS, and C/O COOPER,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 10-cv-017-MJR

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
REAGAN, District Judge:
In January 2010, Lamont Thomas filed suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging
deprivations of his constitutional rights by personnel at Lawrence Correctional Center in Sumner,
Illinois (located within the Southern District of Illinois). He sought leave to proceed in forma
pauperis.
On threshold review in August 2010, Chief Judge David R. Herndon granted Thomas
pauper status, dismissed claims regarding disciplinary proceedings and the denial of grievances, and
also dismissed Defendants Fenoglio, Goins, Moran, Neilsen, Randle, Ryker, Shaw, Wexford Health
and Vaughn. What remained of the case (an Eighth Amendment medical claim against Defendants
Shell, Ray, Huston, Jennings and Cooper; and an Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement
claim against Defendants Cooper and Jennings) to a United States Magistrate Judge for pretrial
proceedings. The case was reassigned to the undersigned District Judge in January 2011.
On January 21, 2011, the Defendants timely moved for summary judgment (Doc. 21).
Defendants argue that Thomas failed to exhaust administrative remedies as to all claims against all
1

Defendants before filing suit, as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Defendants also sought to
preserve their affirmative defense of qualified immunity, in order to develop facts and evidence in
support of that defense. Plaintiff Thomas filed a memorandum in opposition to Defendants’ motion
(Doc. 26), to which Defendants filed a reply (Doc 27). Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Williams
submitted a detailed Report (Doc. 30). Judge Williams found that the underlying factual allegations
are not in dispute; rather, a legal issue is presented regarding the sufficiency of Plaintiff’s grievances
under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e; therefore, no evidentiary
hearing was conducted. Judge Williams recommends that the undersigned Judge grant the motion
in part and deny it in part, permitting the case to proceed only as to Defendant Shell. More
specifically, Judge Williams concluds that Plaintiff Thomas’s grievances were insufficient as to all
claims against Defendants Ray, Huston, Jennings and Cooper. Judge Williams recommends that the
claims against Ray, Huston, Jennings and Cooper be dismissed with prejudice, due to Plaintiff
Thomas’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies, as required by Section 1997e.
Both the Report (Doc. 30, p. 10) and a separate Notice attached thereto (Doc. 30-1)
advised the parties of their right to challenge Judge Williams’ findings and conclusions by filing
“objections” within 14 days. To date, no objections have been filed by the parties, no extension of
the deadline was sought, and the period in which such objections may be filed has expired.
Therefore, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), this Court need not conduct de novo
review. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-52 (1985); Video Views Inc., v. Studio 21, Ltd., 797
F.2d 538 (7th Cir. 1986). Although the Court concurs with Judge Williams’ findings, analysis and
his general conclusions, dismissal of the non-exhausted claims must be without prejudice. In Ford
v. Johnson, 362 F.3d 395, 401 (7th Cir. 2004), the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
2

specifically held that “all dismissals under § 1997e(a) should be without prejudice.” See also
Burrell v. Powers, 431 F.3d 282, 285 (7th Cir. 2005).
Accordingly, the undersigned District Judge: (1) ADOPTS in part Judge Williams’
Report and Recommendation (Doc. 30), rejecting only the recommendation that dismissal be with
prejudice; and (2) GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendants’ motion for summary
judgment (Doc. 21), in that Defendants Lt. Ray, Lee Huston, Lt. Jennings and C/O Cooper are
GRANTED summary judgment and are DISMISSED without prejudice; Defendant Lt. Shell is
DENIED summary judgment and the Eighth Amendment medical deliberate indifference claim
against Defendant Shell shall proceed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: July 12, 2011
s/ Michael J. Reagan
United States District Judge
Southern District of Illinois

3