Norington v. Illinois Department of Corrections et al

Filing 79

ORDER denying 48 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 51 Motion ; denying 54 Motion to Strike ; adopting 62 Report and Recommendations.; denying 70 Motion to Compel; denying 71 Motion for Order; denying 73 Motion for Order. Signed by Judge G. Patrick Murphy on 9/13/2013. (ktc)

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

DAVID NORINGTON,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
LIEUTENANT SCOTT, MJ SCHNICKER, )
C/O LANGSTON, S BETHEL, N MAUE,
)
C/O ROSS, MA MIFFLIN, and
)
UNKNOWN C/O,
)
)
Defendants.
)

CIVIL NO. 12-807-GPM

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
MURPHY, District Judge:
In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, Plaintiff claims that Defendants variously assaulted him
and failed to intervene in the assault. Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing that
Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997(e) (Doc.
48). Pursuant to Pavey v. Conley, 544 F.3d 739 (7th Cir. 2008), United States Magistrate Judge
Donald G. Wilkerson held an evidentiary hearing on the motion for summary judgment on April
17, 2013 (Doc. 60).

This matter is now before the Court on the resulting Report and

Recommendation of Judge Wilkerson (Doc. 62), recommending that this Court deny Defendants’
motion for summary judgment and find that Plaintiff did exhaust his administrative remedies.
Judge Wilkerson’s Report and Recommendation was entered April 19, 2013. No objections have
been filed.
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 “may 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 “give ‘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).
However, where‒as here‒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).
The record and the evidence adduced at the Pavey hearing indicate that Plaintiff did submit
grievances as required. He attempted to forward his grievance up the chain of command. The
Magistrate Judge found Plaintiff credible (Doc. 62, p. 7) and this Court credits that determination.
Therefore, and particularly in light of the lack of objection to the Report and Recommendation,
that Report is ADOPTED and Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the basis of
exhaustion is DENIED. Plaintiff’s pending motions requesting the Court to compel discovery
are denied as the Magistrate Judge will reset scheduling deadlines at his discretion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: September 13, 2013
s/ ZA ctàÜ|v~ `âÜÑ{ç
G. PATRICK MURPHY
United States District Judge