Spivey v. Lt. Chapman et al

Filing 88

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ADOPTING 87 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS; Denying 41 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Lt. Chapman, Warden Flag, Denying 52 MOTION for deposition of this case deposition of William O. Spivey, II filed by William O Spivey, Denying 76 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by William O. Spivey, II. Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 10/17/12. (bkl)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
WILLIAM O. SPIVEY,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Case No. 11-cv-329-JPG

LT. CHAPMAN, WARDEN FLAG, and
SAGER,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) (Doc. 87) of
Magistrate Judge Philip M. Frazier recommending that the Court deny defendants’ motion for summary
judgment (Doc. 41) and plaintiff’s motions for summary judgment (Docs. 52 & 76).
The Court may accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations of
the magistrate judge in a report and recommendation. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). The Court must review de
novo the portions of the report to which objections are made. 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).
The Court has received no objection to the R & R. 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. 87),
which DENIES defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. 41) and plaintiff’s motions for
summary judgment (Docs. 52 & 76).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: October 17, 2012
s/ J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
DISTRICT JUDGE