Hall v. Illinois Department of Corrections et al

Filing 76

ORDER ADOPTING 67 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, DENYING 40 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Mr. Clark, Lisa Shemonic, Supervisor Bendoff. Signed by Judge Michael J. Reagan on 12/15/2011. (mmr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
MICHAEL HALL,
Plaintiff,
vs.
SUPERVISOR BENDOFF, and
MR. CLARK,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 10-cv-0214-MJR

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
REAGAN, District Judge:
Plaintiff Michael Hall is a prisoner in the custody of the Illinois Department of
Correction. On March 18, 2010, Hall, proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint pursuant
to 42 U.S. C. § 1983, alleging that prison officials violated his constitutional rights (Doc. 1).
Less than one month later, on April 12, 2010, an amended complaint was filed (Doc. 5). A
second amended complaint was filed on September 20, 2010 (Doc. 8); it remains the controlling
pleading. Plaintiff alleges that, beginning in 2008, the defendant prison officials at Pinckneyville
Correctional Center and Menard Correctional Center, where he was housed, destroyed and
interfered with his mail, in violation of his rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
See Doc. 11. At this juncture, only two defendants remain: (1) David Bendorff; and (2) Don
Clark.
Defendants Bendorff and Clark have moved for summary judgment, asserting that
Plaintiff Hall failed to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing suit, as required by 42
U.S.C. § 1997e(a) (Doc. 40; see also Doc. 41 (Memorandum in Support)). Plaintiff Hall filed a
response (Doc. 44; see also Doc. 45 (supplemental pages admitted per Doc. 50)). In accordance
1

with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), the motion was referred to an assigned United States Magistrate
for a report and recommendation. See Doc. 11. Consistent with the dictates of Pavey v. Conley,
544 F.3d 739 (7th Cir. 2008), an evidentiary hearing was held before United States Magistrate
Judge Stephen C. Williams on November 3, 2011 (Doc. 74 (Transcript of Hearing)). Judge
Williams subsequently ordered Defendants to file relevant grievances (Doc. 55), some of which
were filed, while Defendants indicated others could not be located (Doc. 59).
Judge Williams issued a report and recommendation on November 18, 2011,
recommending that the Court find that Plaintiff Hall did exhaust administrative remedies as
required and, consequently deny Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. 67). More
specifically, Judge Williams found Defendants’ evidence to be contradictory and confusing, not
clearly establishing that Plaintiff had failed to exhaust administrative remedies. See Doc. 67, pp.
11-12. Judge Williams concluded that Defendants had not met their burden of establishing the
affirmative defense. See Dole v. Chandler, 438 F.3d 804, 809 (7th Cir. 2006).
Both the Report (Doc. 67, p. 12) and a separate Notice attached thereto (Doc. 671) advised the parties of their right to challenge Judge Williams’s findings and conclusions by
filing “objections” within 14 days. To date, no objections have been filed by. On November 28,
2011, Plaintiff Hall filed what is captioned “Objection,” but which clearly states: “Plaintiff has
“No Objection” to: Magistrate Judge’s, [sic] Stephen C. Williams [sic] decision! The end[.]”
Doc. 69. Plaintiff’s “Objection” also referenced staying the case, and requesting an emergency
telephone conference. Without explanation, Plaintiff cites Rowe v. Shake, 196 F.3d 778, 782 (7th
Cir. 1999), and Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (1996). A review of the cases cited by Plaintiff
does not reveal their relevance to the exhaustion issue. Rather, the cases appear to be relevant to
the merits of the First Amendment claims. Thus, no objections to Judge Williams’s report and
2

recommendation have actually been filed. Therefore, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), this Court
need not conduct de novo review. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-152 (1985); Video Views
Inc., v. Studio 21, Ltd., 797 F.2d 538 (7th Cir. 1986).
Accordingly, the undersigned District Judge ADOPTS in its entirety Judge
Williams’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 67), and DENIES Defendants’ motion for
summary judgment (Doc. 40). This case shall proceed against Defendants Bendoff and Clark.
DATED: December 15, 2011
s/ Michael J. Reagan
MICHAEL J. REAGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3