Chencinski v. Reeder et al
Filing
51
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS; granting 31 Motion for Summary Judgment. The only claim that remains is the claim of retaliation against Defendant Berkley relating to his LTS gym porter job. Signed by Judge Michael J. Reagan on 07/16/2013. (bak)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
ROBERT CHENCINSKI, #B-75443,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
vs.
MICHAEL REEDER AND
LT. BERKLEY,
Defendants.
Case No. 12-CV- 0817-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. 45), recommending that this Court
grant Defendants’ motion for summary judgment based on exhaustion. The Report and
Recommendation was entered on May 21, 2013. No objections have been filed.
Plaintiff, then an inmate at Pontiac Correctional Center, filed this case asserting
various due process and retaliation claims (Doc. 1). On December 17, 2012, Defendants
filed a motion for summary judgment on the basis that Plaintiff had failed to exhaust his
administrative remedies. The motion raised three issues for the Court to consider: 1)
whether Plaintiff is excused for failing to grieve the loss of his HVAC job, 2) whether
1
Plaintiff’s grievances against Defendant Riley for the confiscation of his legal mail
include Defendant Reeder by implication, and 3) whether Plaintiff is excused from
grieving his placement in investigative segregation in January of 2011 (Docs. 31).
Magistrate Judge Williams did not hold a Pavey hearing on the basis that Plaintiff failed
to demonstrate that any disputed factual issues exist. Based on a review of the record,
Magistrate Judge Williams issued the Report and Recommendation currently before the
Court (Doc. 45). 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
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).
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
2
(1985). While a de novo review is not required here, the Court has considered the
evidence and fully agrees with the findings, analysis, and conclusions of Magistrate
Judge Williams. With respect to the claim of retaliation relating to Plaintiff’s loss of his
HVAC job, Plaintiff concedes that he failed to grieve this claim. Further, his argument
that retaliation prevented him from grieving the claim is not supported by any evidence
in the record, which instead contradicts Plaintiff’s allegation that he feared retaliation.
With respect to the retaliation claim of being placed in segregation, it is undisputed that
Plaintiff never filed a grievance regarding his January 26, 2011 placement in segregation.
Lastly, with respect to the claim relating to the alleged loss of legal mail, Plaintiff did not
grieve this claim against Defendant Reeder, nor is it part of the conduct described in the
grievances against Lt. Riley. It is apparent to the Court that Plaintiff did not fully
exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing suit, as required by the Prison
Litigation Reform Act. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a).
The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge William=s Report and Recommendation
(Doc. 45) and GRANTS Defendant=s motion for summary judgment for failure to
exhaust administrative remedies (Doc. 31). The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to
exhaust his administrative remedies as to the retaliation claim against Defendant
Berkley for loss of the HVAC position, the claim of retaliation against Defendant Reeder
relating to the loss of mail, and the claim of retaliation relating to his placement in
investigative segregation. The foregoing claims are DISMISSED without prejudice.
The only claim that remains is the claim of retaliation against Defendant Berkley relating
3
to his LTS gym porter job.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: July 16, 2013
s/Michael J. Reagan__________
MICHAEL J. REAGAN
United States District Judge
Page 4 of 4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?