Knox v. Powers et al

Filing 120

ORDER ADOPTING 107 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ; Denying 76 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and MOTION for Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Judge Michael J. Reagan on 12/19/2013. (dkd )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
CHRISTOPHER KNOX,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
MARVIN POWERS, CAMILLE ADAMS, )
CAROL GEORGE, LAURA QUALLS,
)
RHONNA MEDLIN, JULIE KLEIN,
)
KATHY BUTLER, GRACY HART,
)
DELORES HUMELE, HEATHER MEADS, )
CLAUDIA LESLIE, MERILY MERTON,
)
LAKESHA BAKER-CAMBY, SHELVY
)
DUNN, KRISTY WATSON, and NIGEL
)
VINYARD,
)
)
Defendants.
)

Case No. 12-CV-624–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. 107), recommending that the motion
for temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction (Doc. 76) be denied. The
Report and Recommendation was entered on August 12, 2013. Plaintiff twice moved
for an extension of time to file his objection to the Report and Recommendation (Docs.
108 & 111), which the Court granted in both instances (Docs. 109 & 112). Plaintiff filed
his objection to the Report and Recommendation on October 24, 2013 (Doc. 113).

Page 1 of 8

Plaintiff Christopher Knox, currently an inmate at Pontiac Correctional Center,
filed this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 against the above
mentioned defendants, alleging deliberate indifference to a serious medical need, which
survived threshold review (Doc. 17). Plaintiff asserts that he suffers from an untreated
mental illness that causes him to self-mutilate by injecting foreign objects into his urethra
(Doc. 17, Doc. 113, p. 17). He alleges that he mutilated himself on November 9, 2010,
and that each Defendant has refused to give him medical treatment for the injuries he
suffered, failed to accurately document his complaints and falsified his medical records
(Doc. 17, p. 2).
On August 29, 2012, Plaintiff filed his initial Emergency Motion for TRO and
Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 24).

Magistrate Judge Stephen Williams held an

evidentiary hearing on this motion on October 12, 2012 and recommended to the
undersigned District Judge that Plaintiff’s request for an injunction be denied (Doc. 61).
Magistrate Judge Williams found that the evidence presented suggested that Plaintiff
did not have a foreign object lodged in his urethra (Doc. 61). Plaintiff objected to this
finding, indicating that he had been transferred to Pontiac Correctional Center, and
stating that an x-ray at Pontiac identified that there was in fact a foreign object lodged in
his urethra (Doc. 69). He also stated that the foreign object had been removed by the
medical staff at Pontiac (Id.). Thus, the undersigned District Judge denied as moot his
request for a preliminary injunction because the object had been removed from his body
(Doc. 71).
Page 2 of 8

On April 29, 2013, Plaintiff filed another Emergency Motion for TRO and/or
Preliminary Injunction (Docs. 76 & 77), which is currently pending before the Court. In
this motion, Plaintiff argues that he still has the foreign object in his urethra, and that it is
the same object that he inserted on November 9, 2010 (Doc. 77, p. 7). Although Plaintiff
originally stated that the foreign object was removed upon his transfer to Pontiac,
Plaintiff now states that it was not removed but instead Dr. Tilden caused the object to be
pushed further into Plaintiff’s urethra (Doc. 77). Plaintiff further asserts that Dr. Tilden
performed this unsuccessful procedure without his consent or any anesthesia (Id.).
Plaintiff asserts that he met with Dr. Tilden on February 21, 2013 and informed
Dr. Tilden that he believed the object was still lodged in his urethra. Plaintiff asserts
that Dr. Tilden offered to perform another procedure to remove the object, but Plaintiff
declined when he learned the procedure would be performed without anesthesia. On
March 22, 2013, Plaintiff had an x-ray taken, which showed that there is a foreign object
in his urethra. Thus, Plaintiff seeks a preliminary injunction requiring the medical staff
at Pontiac to: take an x-ray of Plaintiff’s urethra, send Plaintiff to a licensed urologist and
carry out the urologists orders, send the x-rays to an independent radiologist to review
the results, provide Plaintiff with pain medication, have the urologist remove the foreign
objection, and stop the current healthcare providers from performing surgical
procedures on Plaintiff without his consent (Doc. 76).
Defendants have filed Responses (Doc. 80 & 81) to Plaintiff’s motion asserting that
Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief against them is now moot as Plaintiff was
Page 3 of 8

transferred to Pontiac. The Court, however, directed Defendants to provide the name
of the medical director at Pontiac, who would be a proper party to add to the case for
injunctive purposes (Doc. 86). The Court also directed Defendants to supplement their
responses by addressing the factual allegations presented in Plaintiff’s motion.
In June of 2013, Defendants supplemented their responses (Docs. 87 & 88)
alleging that Plaintiff did undergo a medical procedure at Pontiac to remove a foreign
object from his body in January of 2013. Specifically, they assert that the object that
Plaintiff refers to now is not the same object that Plaintiff initially referenced in his
Complaint, attaching copies of x-rays and Plaintiff’s medical records to support this
claim.
Given the factual issues presented, Magistrate Judge Williams held an evidentiary
hearing on August 1, 2013. At the evidentiary hearing, Dr. Tilden testified that he first
saw Plaintiff on January 9, 2013 and Plaintiff informed him that he had a foreign object in
his urethra since 2010. Dr. Tilden conducted a physical exam and took an x-ray, which
revealed a metallic object that resembled the tip of an ink pin.

Dr. Tilden then

performed surgery on January 15, 2013, anesthetizing the area with Lidocaine gel, and
removed the object from Plaintiff’s urethra. The object turned out to be the insert of an
ink pen that had been bent in half. Although Plaintiff told Dr. Tilden that it had been in
his urethra since 2010, Dr. Tilden testified that he believed the object had been in
Plaintiff’s urethra for a short time (months or even days) because there was no sign of
adherence or infectious material. Dr. Tilden recalls showing it to Plaintiff and that
Page 4 of 8

Plaintiff was very relieved that it had been removed. Dr. Tilden also testified that
Plaintiff had in fact consented verbally to this procedure.
Dr. Tilden also testified that Plaintiff returned to him on February 24, 2013,
indicating that he stuck another pen into his urethra five days prior to the visit. Dr.
Tilden took another x-ray and referred him to the psychology department. The x-ray
confirmed that there was a metallic foreign body in his urethra which appeared to be the
tip of an ink pin. Dr. Tilden testified that although the x-ray report, dated March 22,
2013, indicated that the object appeared “stable since the prior examination,” it is not the
same object. Specifically, Dr. Tilden testified that the radiologist was not told that the
object from January 15, 2013 had been removed. Dr. Tilden has offered to remove this
foreign body but Plaintiff has refused treatment and also refused to sign the form
indicating that he refused treatment.
Based the evidence presented at the hearing, Magistrate Judge Williams issued
the Report and Recommendation currently before the Court (Doc. 107). The Report and
Recommendation accurately states the nature of the evidence presented by both sides on
the issue of exhaustion, 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
Page 5 of 8

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).
In Plaintiff’s objection to the Report and Recommendation, he essentially
reiterates the same arguments made in his motion for TRO and/or Preliminary
Injunction (Doc. 66, 67). Specifically, Plaintiff asserts that the ink pen that he inserted
into his urethra in November of 2010 is still in his body. Plaintiff argues that, although
he previously stated that the object had been removed, he was relying upon information
provided by Dr. Tilden (See Doc. 13, p. 17). Now, he asserts that no object was ever
removed from his urethra on January 15, 2013 (Id.).
Dr. Tilden, however, testified at the evidentiary hearing that he did remove a
foreign object from Plaintiff’s urethra on January 15, 2013. Dr. Tilden stated that it was
clear that he had removed all of the foreign object that day, and was hesitant to order
another x-ray due to its carcinogenic effect. Further, after the object’s removal, it was
shown to the Plaintiff and three or four witnesses in the exam room. Magistrate Judge
Williams concluded that the evidence presented suggests that the object Plaintiff
complains of now is not the same object that Plaintiff alleges he placed in his urethra in
2010 and thus this instance of him placing an object in his urethra is not part of the claim
that is currently before the Court. Magistrate Judge Williams determined that this is a
Page 6 of 8

new claim, unrelated to his current claim, and thus Plaintiff would need to file a new suit
as this claim after fully exhausting his administrative remedies.
After hearing the testimony at the evidentiary hearing, Magistrate Judge Williams
concluded that Dr. Tilden was “both reliable and credible” (See Doc. 107, p. 10). To the
contrary, Magistrate Judge Williams found that Plaintiff’s testimony lacks credibility “as
he previously testified the pen had been removed in January and he is an admitted
self-mutilator who has ‘always self-mutilated [himself] with an segregation flex pen
folded into a ‘v’ shape with the tip attached inserted into urethra’” (Doc. 107). “The
district court is not required to conduct another hearing to review the magistrate judge’s
findings or credibility determinations.” Goffman v. Gross, 59 F.3d 668, 671 (7th Cir.
1995); See also 12 Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Richard L. Marcus, Federal
Practice and Procedure § 3070.2 (2d ed. 1987 & Supp. 2011) (the “de novo
determination” required under 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure is “not meant to compel the [district] judge to conduct a new hearing”
and instead means that the district judge must “give fresh consideration to those
issues to which specific objections have been made”).

Here, the undersigned

District Judge is satisfied with Magistrate Judge Williams’ credibility determinations
and thus treats his findings and recommendations as his own. Id.
For these reasons, the Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge William’s Report and
Recommendation (Doc. 107).

Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for TRO and/or

Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 76) is DENIED.
Page 7 of 8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: December 19, 2013
s/Michael J. Reagan
MICHAEL J. REAGAN
United States District Judge

Page 8 of 8