Miller v. Shaw et al

Filing 66

ORDER ADOPTING 61 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION and DENYING 14 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to Exhaust filed by Vipin Shah, M.D., and 33 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to Exhaust filed by St. Clair County Jail. Signed by Judge G. Patrick Murphy on 6/30/2011. (ssd)

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

DEREK W. MILLER,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
VIPIN SHAH, M.D., and ST. CLAIR )
COUNTY JAIL,
)
)
Defendants.
)

CIVIL NO. 10-346-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. 61), recommending that the motions to dismiss for
failure to exhaust administrative remedies filed by Defendants Shah (Doc. 14) and St. Clair County
Jail (Doc. 33) be denied. In accordance with the dictates of Pavey v. Conley, 544 F.3d 739 (7th Cir.
2008), Magistrate Judge Wilkerson held a hearing on April 14, 2011, to determine whether Plaintiff
exhausted available administrative remedies (see Doc. 43). Magistrate Judge Wilkerson issued his
Report and Recommendation on June 8, 2011; no timely objections have been filed.
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

Page 1 of 2

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. 61)1 and DENIES
Defendants’ motions to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies (Docs. 14, 33).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: 06/30/11
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