Shaw v. Gaetz et al

Filing 76

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS; No objections having been filed by any party to the Report and Recommendation submitted by Judge Williams, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report in its entirety 72 , and GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defen dants' summary judgment motion 55 . The motion is GRANTED as to Defendants Jay Merchant and Hiram Sloan. The motion is DENIED as to Defendant Kenneth Robinson. Remaining for trial herein are Plaintiff Shaw's claims against Defendant Robinson. Signed by Judge Michael J. Reagan on 02/13/2012. (dkd )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
CAMERON SHAW,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JAY M. MERCHANT,
KENNETH ROBINSON,
and HIRAM SLOAN,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 10-cv-0144-MJR-SCW

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
REAGAN, District Judge:
An inmate in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections,
Cameron Shaw filed suit in this Court under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that various
correctional officials at Pinckneyville Correctional Center violated his federally-secured
constitutional rights. More specifically, Shaw alleged that he suffers from a seizure
disorder, he was given a medical permission slip authorizing a “low bunk” assignment,
he was denied a low bunk assignment, he fell from an upper bunk and was injured, and
Defendants failed to protect him this harm and failed to provide adequate medical care
for the injuries he sustained in the fall.
On threshold review of the complaint under 28 U.S.C. 1915A, the Court
construed the complaint as alleging violations of Shaw’s rights under the Eighth
Amendment to the United States Constitution, dismissed the claims against four
Defendants (Gaetz, Walker, Larson and Obadina), directed service to be made on the
other named Defendants, and referred the case to a United States Magistrate Judge for
pretrial proceedings.
Page | 1

Later Orders clarified the identity of several Defendants, Shaw filed an
amended complaint in November 2010, and an additional Defendant was dismissed in
August 2011. Remaining at this time are Shaw’s Eighth Amendment deliberate
indifference claims against Defendants Jay Merchant, Kenneth Robinson, and Hiram
Sloan.1

Now before the Court is the summary judgment motion filed by these three

Defendants to which Plaintiff Shaw responded October 3, 2011.
On January 6, 2012, the Honorable Stephen C. Williams, Magistrate
Judge, submitted a Report and Recommendation as to this motion (Doc. 72). The
Report recommends that the undersigned District Judge partially grant and partially
deny the summary judgment motion. The Report and Recommendation was sent to the
parties along with a Notice plainly advising that any Objections must be filed within 14
days of service, and failure to file such objections would result in a waiver of the right to
appeal all issues addressed therein (Doc. 72-1).
Plaintiff received only a partial copy of the Report and Recommendation,
so the Court freshly mailed a complete copy of the Report and Recommendation on
January 18, 2012 and adjusted the objection-filing deadline accordingly. Objections to
the Report and Recommendation were due to be filed no later than February 6, 2012.
As of February 13, 2011 at 3:00 pm, no objections were filed by any party.
Accordingly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b), the undersigned Judge need not conduct de
novo review of the Report and Recommendations. 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(C)(“A judge of
the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or
1

The pleadings in the case have furnished additional information
as to the Defendant’s identities. At this time, the docket sheet still refers
to Hiram Sloan as “C/O Saloan, also known as John Doe 2.” The Clerk’s
Office will CORRECT/UPDATE the docket sheet as to Defendant Hiram
Sloan and also reflect that Defendant Robinson’s first name is Kenneth.

Page | 2

specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.”).
See also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Johnson v. Zema Systems Corp.,
170 F.3d 734, 741 (7th Cir. 1999); Video Views Inc., v. Studio 21, Ltd., 797 F.2d 538
(7th Cir. 1986).
No objections having been filed by any party to the Report and
Recommendation submitted by Judge Williams, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report
in its entirety (Doc. 72), and GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendants’
summary judgment motion (Doc. 55). The motion is GRANTED as to Defendants Jay
Merchant and Hiram Sloan. At the close of the case, the Clerk’s Office shall enter
judgment in favor of Defendants Merchant and Sloan and against Plaintiff Shaw.
The motion is DENIED as to Defendant Kenneth Robinson. Remaining for
trial herein are Plaintiff Shaw’s claims against Defendant Robinson. One other motion
is pending – a January 24, 2012 motion for appointment of counsel, in which Plaintiff
renews his request for appointment of an attorney, as “this case has now advanced to
the trial stage” (Doc. 75). That motion will be ruled on by Judge Williams, and the Court
anticipates that, in the near future, a firm trial date and final pretrial conference will be
scheduled.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED February 13, 2012.
s/ Michael J. Reagan
Michael J. Reagan
United States District Judge

Page | 3