Byrd v. Gaetz, et al

Filing 47

ORDER ADOPTING 29 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 17 MOTION for Injunction Request filed by Thomas E Byrd; DENYING 17 MOTION for Injunction; and STRIKING as duplicative 35 MOTION. Signed by Judge Michael J. Reagan on 2/8/2013. (mmr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
THOMAS E. BYRD,
Plaintiff,
vs.
C/O FAGERLAND,
LT. HUBLER,
DR. SHAH,
ANGEL RECTOR, and
RAYMOND SHANE BROWN,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 12-cv-1018-MJR-SCW

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
REAGAN, District Judge:
Plaintiff Thomas E. Byrd, who is in the custody of the Illinois Department of
Corrections, brought this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, raising a variety
of Eighth Amendment claims against health care providers and corrections officials at
Pinckneyville Correctional Center (Doc. 1). Plaintiff’s claims all revolve around his desire to
have surgical screws removed from his ankle, and being denied low bunk permits and
accommodations for his ankle.

Before the Court is Plaintiff Byrd’s motion for injunctive relief (Doc. 17). Byrd
seeks a transfer to Pontiac Correctional Center because he fears for his life, intimating that the
defendants will retaliate against him for filing suit. Plaintiff also requests a second opinion
from Dr. Schierer, the surgeon who implanted the screws in his ankle.
Also before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of U.S. Magistrate
Judge Stephen C. Williams, recommending that Byrd’s motion be denied in all respects (Doc.
1

29).

Judge Williams essentially concluded that Byrd offered nothing more than a bald assertion

of fear, and no showing that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm without immediate injunctive
relief.
Both the Report (Doc. 29, p. 4) and a separate notice (Doc. 29-1) advised the
parties of their right to challenge Judge Williams= findings and conclusions by filing Aobjections@
within 14 days.

To date, no objections have been filed, no extension of the deadline has been

sought, and the objection period has expired. However, within the 14-day period Plaintiff did
file a motion seeking a temporary restraining order (Doc. 35). Byrd again seeks a transfer to
Pontiac, and a second opinion from Dr. Schierer. Because Byrd’s second motion is virtually
identical to his first, the second motion (Doc. 35) is STRICKEN as duplicative.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b), because no specific objections have been filed,
this Court need not conduct de novo review. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-52 (1985);
Video Views Inc., v. Studio 21, Ltd., 797 F.2d 538 (7th Cir. 1986).

“If no objection or only

partial objection is made, the district court judge reviews those unobjected portions for clear
error.” Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir.1999).
Having reviewed the motion and the Report and Recommendation, the Court
concurs with Judge Williams= findings, analysis and conclusions.

Accordingly, the undersigned

District Judge: (1) ADOPTS Judge Williams= Report and Recommendation (Doc. 29); and (2)
DENIES Plaintiff Byrd’s motion for injunctive relief (Doc. 17).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: February 8, 2013
s/ Michael J. Reagan
United States District Judge
Southern District of Illinois
2