Plummer v. I.D.O.C. et al

Filing 72

ORDER, For the reasons explained in the attached Memorandum and Order, the Court ADOPTS (Doc. 65 ) the Report & Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Williams, DENIES (Doc. 46 ) Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, GRANTS IN PART (Doc. 66 ) Defendants' Motion for Extension of Time, and DIRECTS the Clerk to correct two names on the docket. See attached for details. Signed by Judge Michael J. Reagan on 1/29/14. (dkd )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
CONTRELL PLUMMER,
Plaintiff,
vs.
WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC. 1,
DR. M. FAHIM, and DR. FUENTES,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 11–cv–0682–MJR–SCW

MEMORANDUM & ORDER
REAGAN, District Judge:
This case stems from Plaintiff’s allegations that Defendants (state and contracted medical
providers at Illinois’ Menard Correctional Center) acted with deliberate indifference to his asthma,
abdominal pain, and back pain, and that Defendants Fahim and Fuentes retaliated against him for
complaining. In April 2013, Defendants Fahim and Fuentes filed a motion for summary judgment
based on (they argued) Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust his administrative remedies.
Under the regime outlined in Pavey v. Conley, 544 F.3d 739 (7th Cir. 2008), Magistrate Judge
Stephen C. Williams held a hearing on the motion in October 2013. Shortly thereafter, and pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(B) and (c), and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), Judge Williams
submitted a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) in which he found Defendants failed to meet
their Pavey burden, and that Defendants’ summary judgment motion to be dismissed.
The Report was sent to the parties with a notice informing them of their right to
appeal by way of objection within fourteen days of service. To date, no objections have been filed,
Though the docket lists Defendant as “Wexford,” it is clear from their motions their proper name is Wexford Health
Sources, Inc. The Clerk is therefore DIRECTED to substitute “Wexford Health Sources, Inc.” for “Wexford,” and to
terminate the wrongly-named Defendant from the docket. For the same reason, the Clerk is DIRECTED to substitute
“Dr. Fuentes” for “Dr. Fuentas.”

1

1

and the period in which objections may be filed has long since passed. The undersigned district
judge, therefore, need not conduct de novo review of the R&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); T homas

v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140, 149–52 (1985); Banco Del Atlantico, S.A. v. Woods Indus. , 519 F.3d 350,
354 (7th Cir. 2008); Video Views, Inc. v. Studio 21, Ltd. 797 F.2d 538, 539–40 (7th Cir. 1986).
Accordingly, the undersigned ADOPTS (Doc. 65) Judge Williams R&R in its entirety, and
DENIES (Doc. 46) Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment.
One more motion warrants immediate attention. Due in part to the delays created by the
pendency of their summary judgment motion, Defendants have moved for a 90-day extension to
complete discovery on substantive issues. That extension will, necessarily, require moving the July
2014 jury trial date (and other deadlines). The Court GRANTS (Doc. 66) the motion in part, and
RESETS the jury trial for Monday, September 29, 2014. The discovery and dispositive motion
deadlines shall also be postponed, until March 31, 2014, and April 30, 2014, respectively.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Michael J. Reagan
MICHAEL J. REAGAN
United States District Judge

DATE: January 29, 2014

2