Williams v. Hulick et al

Filing 51

ORDER ADOPTING 40 Report and Recommendation; GRANTING 22 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on the Issue of Exhaustion filed by Donald Hulick and Timothy Wagner; and DISMISSING with prejudice Donald Hulick, Officer John Doe, and Nurse Jane Doe. (Officer John Doe, Donald Hulick, and Nurse Jane Doe terminated on the docket.) Signed by Judge G. Patrick Murphy on 9/12/2011. (ssd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EUGENE WILLIAMS,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
DONALD HULICK, TIMOTHY WAGNER, )
OFFICER JOHN DOE, and NURSE JANE )
DOE,
)
)
Defendants.
)

CIVIL NO. 10-206-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. 40), recommending that the motion for partial
summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies filed by Defendants Hulick and
Wagner (Doc. 22) be granted. In accordance with the dictates of Pavey v. Conley, 544 F.3d 739
(7th Cir. 2008), Magistrate Judge Wilkerson held a hearing on April 21, 2011, to determine whether
Plaintiff exhausted available administrative remedies on his claim that Defendants Hulick, Wagner,
and John Doe were deliberately indifferent to a risk of attack by promulgating and utilizing certain
handcuff procedures (see Docs. 35, 37). Magistrate Judge Wilkerson issued his Report and
Recommendation on July 19, 2011, and sua sponte recommended that Plaintiff’s claims asserted
against John Doe and Jane Doe be dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to identify these Defendants and
for Plaintiff’s failure to identify or describe such individuals in his grievance. No timely objections
to the Report and Recommendation have been filed.

Page 1 of 2

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.
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. 40),1 GRANTS the
motion for partial summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies filed by
Defendants Hulick and Wagner (Doc. 22), and DISMISSES with prejudice the claims asserted
against Donald Hulick, John Doe, and Jane Doe. All that remains is Plaintiff’s claim against
Timothy Wagner for deliberate indifference to health and safety delineated as Count 3 in this Court’s
threshold Order dated November 15, 2010 (see Doc. 8).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: 09/12/11
s/ ZA ctàÜ|v~ `âÜÑ{ç
G. PATRICK MURPHY
United States District Judge
1

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 2