Boclair v. Illinois Department of Corrections et al

Filing 55

The Court hereby ADOPTS that Report 52 in its entirety. The Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendants' summary judgment motion 44 . Defendants' motion is denied as to Beardan Monroe and Westerman. Defendants' motion is gra nted as to Hulick, Liefer, Maue and Sadler. Accordingly, all claims against Defendants Hulick, Liefer, Maue and Sadler are hereby DISMISSED without prejudice based on Plaintiff's failure to exhaust prior to commencing this suit. The only claims which remain for disposition herein are Plaintiff's retaliation claims against Defendants Tina Beardan Monroe and Darrell Westerman. Signed by Judge Michael J. Reagan on 02/13/2012. (dkd )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
STANLEY BOCLAIR,
Plaintiff,
vs.
DONALD HULICK,
TINA BEARDAN MONROE,
BRADLEY SADLER,
TOM MAUE,
DARRELL WESTERMAN,
and DAN LIEFER,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 10-cv-0978-MJR-SCW

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
REAGAN, District Judge:
Stanley Boclair filed this prisoner civil rights suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983,
alleging deprivations of his constitutional rights while he was housed at Menard
Correctional Center in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections.

On

threshold review of the complaint under 28 U.S.C. 1915A, the undersigned Judge
dismissed several claims and Defendants, ordered service to be made on the remaining
Defendants, and referred the case to the Honorable Stephen C. Williams, United States
Magistrate Judge, to handle pretrial matters pursuant to Local Rule 72.1(a).
The seven Defendants who survived threshold screening were (1) Donald
Hulick, (2) Tina Beardon Monroe, (3) “Shawn Saddler,” (4) “Maue,” (5) Darrell
Westerman, (6) “Liefer,” and (7) Unknown Party John Doe(s).

Subsequent pleadings

and Orders dismissed the unknown party John Doe Defendants and clarified that
“Shawn Saddler” is Bradley Sadler, “Maue” is Tom Maue, “Liefer” is Dan Liefer, and

Page | 1

Tina Monroe’s middle name is spelled “Beardan” (rather than Beardon). See, e.g.,
Defendants’ Answer at Doc. 32.

The Clerk’s Office shall now CORRECT THE

DOCKET SHEET to list the correct names and spellings for Defendants Sadler, Maue,
Liefer and Monroe.
On September 23, 2011, the remaining six Defendants herein (Hulick,
Liefer, Maue, Beardan Monroe, Sadler and Westerman) moved for summary judgment
based on Plaintiff Boclair’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies as required by the
Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. 1997e(a), prior to filing this suit (Doc. 44). On
January 24, 2012, Judge Williams submitted a Report (Doc. 52) recommending that the
undersigned District Judge grant in part and deny in part Defendants’ summary
judgment motion.1

The Report and Recommendation was sent to the parties with a

notice plainly advising them that they must file any objections by February 10, 2012
(Doc. 52-1).
As of February 13, 2012, 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
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).

1

Judge Williams determined that there were no factual disputes as to exhaustion,
and therefore a Pavey hearing was not necessary to resolve the solely legal questions
relating to exhaustion in this case.

Page | 2

No objections have been filed to the Report and Recommendation
submitted by Judge Williams. The Court hereby ADOPTS that Report (Doc. 52) in its
entirety, as explained below.
The Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendants’
summary judgment motion (Doc. 44). Based on Judge Williams’ analysis and detailed
findings, the Court concludes as follows. Plaintiff exhausted his administrative remedies
as to Defendants Tina Beardan Monroe and Darrell Westerman. Therefore Defendants’
motion is denied as to Beardan Monroe and Westerman. Plaintiff failed to exhaust as to
Defendants Donald Hulick, Dan Liefer, Tom Maue and Bradley Sadler. So Defendants’
motion is granted as to Hulick, Liefer, Maue and Sadler. If administrative remedies are
not properly exhausted prior to filing suit, the district court must dismiss those
claims/defendants without prejudice. See, e.g., Burrell v. Powers, 431 F.3d 282, 284
(7th Cir. 2005), citing Walker v. Thompson, 288 F.3d 1005, 1009 (7th Cir.
2002)(“Dismissal for failure to exhaust is without prejudice ….”); Ford v. Johnson,
362 F.3d 395, 401 (7th Cir. 2004)(“We therefore hold that all dismissals under §
1997e(a) should be without prejudice”). Accordingly, all claims against Defendants
Hulick, Liefer, Maue and Sadler are hereby DISMISSED without prejudice based on
Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust prior to commencing this suit.
As a consequence of the Court adopting Judge Williams’ Report and
Recommendation, the only claims which remain for disposition herein are
Plaintiff’s retaliation claims against Defendants Tina Beardan Monroe and Darrell
Westerman. A trial date has been set before the undersigned District Judge (October

Page | 3

15, 2012), and Judge Williams will conduct a final pretrial conference on September 4,
2012 (see Docs. 39, 40).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED February 13, 2012.
s/ Michael J. Reagan
Michael J. Reagan
United States District Judge

Page | 4