Turley v. Rednour et al

Filing 145

ORDER ADOPTING 135 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS; granting in part and denying in part 95 Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff's claim against Defendant Hassemeyer is DISMISSED without prejudice. The claims as to all other defendants remain. Signed by Judge Michael J. Reagan on 07/16/2013. (bak)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
vs.
)
)
)
DAVID A. REDNOUR, JOANNA
HULCE, KIM BUTLER, BETSY SPILLER, )
TRACY HARRINGTON, LT. LIEFER, SGT )
SCHERTZ, J. VASQUEZ, OFFICER
)
)
TADARA, OFFICER MAUE, S. HENRY,
)
SGT HASSEMEYER, SANDRA FUNK,
)
TERRI ANDERSON, MELISSA
)
SAUERWEIN, LATOYA OWENS,
BARBARA MUELLER, ROGER SHURTZ, )
)
JASON VASQUEZ, CHAD TODARO,
)
LUCAS MAUE, BRETT CHANDLER,
)
DETHROW, CLOVER,
)
)
Defendants.
GREGORY J. TURLEY,

Case No. 11-CV- 01052-MJR-SCW

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
REAGAN, District Judge:
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of United
States Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Williams (Doc. 135), recommending that this Court
deny in part and grant in part Defendants’ motion for summary judgment based on
exhaustion.

The Report and Recommendation was entered on May 20, 2013.

No

objections have been filed.
Plaintiff Gregory Turley, an inmate at Menard Correctional Center, filed this case
1

asserting failure to protect and retaliation claims against numerous defendants (Doc. 1).
On January 8, 2013, several of the Defendants filed a joint motion for summary judgment
on the basis that Plaintiff had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies before
bringing suit as to Defendants Hassemeyer, Vasquez, Schertz, Liefer, Henry, Dethrow,
Waller, Westerman, Anderson, and Funk (Docs. 95). As required by Pavey v. Conley, 544
F.3d 739 (7th Cir. 2008), Magistrate Judge Williams held an evidentiary hearing on
Defendants’ motion (See Doc. 139). Following the Pavey hearing, Magistrate Judge
Williams issued the Report and Recommendation currently before the Court (Doc. 135).
The Report and Recommendation accurately states the nature of the evidence presented
by both sides on the issue of exhaustion, including the testimony heard during the Pavey
hearing, as well as the applicable law and the requirements of the administrative
process.
Where timely objections are filed, this Court must undertake a de novo review of
the Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(B), (C); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b);
SDIL-LR 73.1(b); Harper v. City of Chicago Heights, 824 F. Supp. 786, 788 (N.D. Ill.
1993); see also Govas v. Chalmers, 965 F.2d 298, 301 (7th Cir. 1992). The Court Amay
accept, reject or modify the magistrate judge=s recommended decision.@ Harper, 824 F.
Supp. at 788. In making this determination, the Court must look at all of the evidence
contained in the record and Agive >fresh consideration to those issues to which specific
objections have been made.=@

Id., quoting 12 Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal

Practice and Procedure ' 3076.8, at p. 55 (1st ed. 1973) (1992 Pocket Part).
2

However, where neither timely nor specific objections to the Report and
Recommendation are made, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b), this Court need not conduct
a de novo review of the Report and Recommendation. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140
(1985). While a de novo review is not required here, the Court has considered the
evidence adduced at the Pavey hearing and fully agrees with the findings, analysis, and
conclusions of Magistrate Judge Williams.

Plaintiff clarified at the hearing that

Defendants Dethrow, Vasquez, Schertz, Liefer and Henry were mentioned on missing
pages of his December 14, 2011 grievance. He also pointed to other evidence in the
record that substantiated this claim. Plaintiff admitted, however, that he did not
specifically name Hassemeyer in the grievance.1
The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge William=s Report and Recommendation
(Doc. 135) and GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Defendant=s motion for
summary judgment (Docs. 95, 96). The Court finds that Plaintiff has exhausted his
administrative remedies as to Defendants Vasquez, Schertz, Liefer, Henry, and Dethrow,
and thus the motion for summary judgment as to these defendants is DENIED. The
Court, however, finds that Plaintiff has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as
to Defendant Hassemeyer, and thus the motion for summary judgment as to Defendant
Hassemeyer is GRANTED.

Plaintiff=s claim against Defendant Hassemeyer is

DISMISSED without prejudice. The claims as to all other defendants remain.

1

Defendants conceded at the hearing that Funk and Anderson were grieved by Plaintiff and withdrew their motion as
to those two defendants. Plaintiff also dismissed Defendants Waller and Westerman in his Amended Complaint.
3

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: July 16, 2013

s/ Michael J. Reagan____________
MICHAEL J. REAGAN
United States District Judge

Page 4 of 4