Talley v. Hodge et al

Filing 42

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 41 in its entirety as to 33 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment for Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies filed by Defendants Knop and Kessell: For the reasons explained in the attached Ord er, the Court ADOPTS in its entirety Judge Williams' Report and Recommendation (Doc. 41) and partilly grants/partially denies Defendants' motion (Doc. 33). The motion is granted as to Plaintiff's claim that Defendants deprived Plainti ff of medical care needed to treat a serious medical condition. The motion is denied as to Plaintiff's claims relating to stolen property and legal materials. As a result of this Order, only Counts 1 and 2 remain pending herein.Signed by Judge Michael J. Reagan on 5/19/13. (soh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
DURWYN TALLEY,
Plaintiff,
vs.
C/O COREY KNOP, and
C/O JAMES KESSEL,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 11-cv-1001-MJR-SCW

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
REAGAN, District Judge:
In this pro se civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. 1983, Durwyn Talley
challenged, inter alia, the conditions and treatment he experienced while confined at
Lawrence Correctional Center. Prior Orders entered herein (including the August 10,
2012 threshold review Order) resulted in the dismissal of various claims, leaving three
causes of action against two correctional officers – Defendant Knop and Defendant
Kessel.

Pending in this case is a motion for partial summary judgment filed by

Defendants on January 10, 2013. Defendants contend that Talley failed to exhaust his
administrative remedies before filing this suit.
On April 25, 2013, Judge Williams submitted a Report recommending that the
Court partially grant and partially deny the summary judgment motion (Doc. 41). The
Report plainly notified the parties that they must file any objections “on or before May
13, 2013” (Doc. 41, p. 8). 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. 41), including Judge Williams’
detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law contained therein, in entirety.
Therefore, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendant’s summary
judgment motion (Doc. 33). The motion is granted as to Plaintiff’s claim that Defendants
deprived Plaintiff of medical care needed to treat a serious medical condition. The
motion is denied as to Plaintiff’s claim that Defendants stole some of Plaintiff’s personal
property and legal work. Stated another way, Count 3 is dismissed; Counts 1 and 2
remain pending herein.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED May 19, 2013.
s/ Michael J. Reagan
Michael J. Reagan
United States District Judge