Martin v. Rednour et al

Filing 43

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 42 denying 24 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Lt. Bedinger, T. Morris. Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 8/27/2012. (dka, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
TIMMIE MARTIN,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 10-cv-1035-JPG-PMF

vs.
DAVID A. REDNOUR, et al.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) (Doc. 42) of
Magistrate Judge Philip M. Frazier recommending that the Court deny defendants’ motion for summary
judgment (Doc. 24). The defendants have not filed an objection to the R & R.
After reviewing a report and recommendation, the Court may accept, reject or modify, in whole or in
part, the findings or recommendations of the magistrate judge in the report. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). The Court
must review de novo the portions of the report to which objections are made. Id.

The Court has discretion

to conduct a new hearing and may consider the record before the magistrate judge anew or receive any
further evidence deemed necessary. Id. “If no objection or only partial objection is made, the district court
judge reviews those unobjected portions for clear error.” Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th
Cir. 1999). A party must raise specific objections to the report and recommendation. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
The term “specific as used in Rule 72(b) . . . require[s] a party only to specify each issue for which review is
sought and not the factual or legal basis of the objection.” Johnson, 170 F.3d at 741.
The Court has reviewed the entire file and finds that the R & R is not clearly erroneous. As such, the
Court hereby ADOPTS the R & R (Doc. 42), which DENIES defendants’ motion for summary judgment
(Doc. 24).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: August 27, 2012
s/ J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
DISTRICT JUDGE