Sultan v. Fenoglio et al

Filing 194

ORDER adopting 193 Report and Recommendations: As explained in the attached Order, the Court ADOPTS Judge Williams' Report and Recommendation and all findings therein in entirety (Doc. 193), FINDS that Plaintiff committed perjury in the course of this litigation, FINDS that Plaintiff has not shown cause, and as a sanction for Plaintiffs behavior DISMISSES this case with prejudice and assesses a strike against Plaintiff. Signed by Chief Judge Michael J. Reagan on 6/8/16. (soh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
CHARLES SULTAN,
Plaintiff,
vs.
DR. JAMES FENOGLIO,
DR. PHILLIP MARTIN,
ELAINE HARDY,
TAMMY KIMMEL,
WEXFORD HEALTH SERVICES,
ROBERT BOLDREY, and
BENJAMIN HABING,
Defendants.

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

Case No. 12-cv-1229-MJR-SCW

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
REAGAN, Chief Judge:
Currently incarcerated at Western Illinois Correctional Center, Charles Sultan
filed this civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 while confined at Lawrence
Correctional Center. The complaint challenged Plaintiff’s conditions of confinement
and medical treatment at Lawrence.

On threshold review of the complaint, the

undersigned dismissed certain claims and let the suit to proceed on three claims as to
eight Defendants (Doc. 6). Another Defendant and one claim were dismissed in Orders
in May 2013 and October 2013 respectively (Docs. 49, 95).

In February 2014, the

undersigned dismissed with prejudice the remaining claims under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 41(b) (Doc. 116). The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
vacated that dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings (Doc. 135).

1

In late March 2015 and again in February 2016 (Doc. 148, Doc. 178), the
undersigned partially granted and partially denied summary judgment motions filed
by Defendants.

Because the record indicated that Plaintiff had lied in presenting

evidence (i.e., fabricating offender request slips and related materials to oppose
summary judgment), the Court (in the February 2016 Order) directed Plaintiff to show
cause why this case should not be dismissed (and a strike assessed against him) as a
sanction for perjury. The undersigned Chief Judge referred the matter to the Honorable
Stephen C. Williams, United States Magistrate Judge, to conduct an evidentiary hearing
and submit a Report and Recommendation on the issue.
Judge Williams conducted the show cause evidentiary hearing on April 8, 2016.
Plaintiff appeared by videoconference from Western Illinois Correctional Center. On
April 19, 2016, Judge Williams submitted a thorough, 17-page Report and
Recommendation (Doc. 193), recommending that the undersigned dismiss this case and
assess a strike against Plaintiff as a sanction for his behavior. The Report details the
conduct by Plaintiff including fabrication of request slips to fit the narrative of his case,
finds that fabrication to constitute an intentional falsehood, notes that “Plaintiff
admitted that he made up the exhibits in support of his summary judgment motion
(Doc. 183),” and concludes that Plaintiff committed perjury in this case (Doc. 193).
Judge Williams clearly set a firm deadline by which any objection to the Report
and Recommendation had to be filed. That deadline (June 6, 2016) elapsed; no objection
was timely filed. Accordingly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b), the undersigned Judge
need not conduct de novo review of the Report and Recommendation.
2

28 U.S.C.

636(b)(1)(C) (“A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those
portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which
objection is made.”). See also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Johnson v. Zema
Systems Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 741 (7th Cir. 1999); Video Views Inc., v. Studio 21, Ltd., 797
F.2d 538 (7th Cir. 1986).
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Judge Williams’ Report and Recommendation
and all findings therein in entirety (Doc. 193), FINDS that Plaintiff committed perjury in
the course of this litigation, FINDS that Plaintiff has not shown cause, and as a sanction
for Plaintiff’s behavior DISMISSES this case with prejudice and assesses a strike
against Plaintiff.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED June 8, 2016.
s/ Michael J. Reagan
Michael J. Reagan
United States District Judge

3