Harper v. Ryker et al

Filing 73

ORDER ADOPTING 71 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS and DENYING 57 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Wexford Health Sources, Doctor Fenoglio, and Nurse Haines: For the reasons explained in the attached Memorandum and Order, the Court ADOPTS in its entirety Judge Williams' Report and Recommendation (Doc. 71) and DENIES Defendants' summary judgment motion (Doc. 57). Signed by Judge Michael J. Reagan on 12/18/12. (soh )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
DAVID HARPER,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JASON HENTON,
AARON MIDDLETON,
JAMES OCHS,
ELAINE HARDY,
JAMES FENOGLIO,
HELEN HAINES, and
WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES,
Defendants.

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

Case No. 11-cv-0406-MJR-SCW

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
REAGAN, District Judge:
David Harper filed suit in this Court in May 2011, alleging that prison officials
failed to protect him from attack by his cell mate and were deliberately indifferent to his
medical needs following that attack. Certain claims and Defendants were dismissed in
the Court’s threshold review Order in June 2012. The undersigned ordered service on
the seven 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). Defendants entered, and the parties filed motions.
On October 22, 2012, three Defendants (Dr. James Fenoglio, Nurse Helen
Haines, and Wexford Health Sources) moved for summary judgment on the deliberate
indifference claims against them on the ground that Plaintiff had not exhausted his
administrative remedies prior to filing this suit, as required by the Prison Litigation
Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. 1997e(a). That Act provides that “[n]o action shall be brought

with respect to prison conditions under section 1983 … until such administrative
remedies as are available are exhausted.”
Plaintiff responded to Defendants’ summary judgment motion (Docs. 61-62) and
by supplemental memorandum (Doc. 72). On November 30, 2012, Judge Williams
submitted a Report recommending that the Court deny the pending summary judgment
motion. The Report plainly notified the parties that they must file any objections “on or
before December 17, 2012” (Doc. 71, p. 11, underlining in original).
That deadline has elapsed, and 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).
The Court hereby ADOPTS the Report (Doc. 71), including Judge Williams’
detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law contained therein, in entirety.
The Court DENIES Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. 57).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED December 18, 2012.
s/ Michael J. Reagan
Michael J. Reagan
United States District Judge