Smith v. Donald Gaetz et al

Filing 69

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, The Court ADOPTS the Report in its entirety (Doc. 52 );DENIES Smiths motion for an extension of time to respond (Doc. 64 ); DENIES Smiths motion to supplement objection (Doc. 65 ), which the Court construes as a motion for a hearing; and DENIES without prejudice Smiths motion for a preliminary injunction (Doc. 39 ). Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 6/2/2014. (jdh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
ROBIN SMITH,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 13-cv-220-JPG-PMF

STATE of ILLINOIS, SALVADOR A. GODINEZ,
DONALD GAETZ, GINA ALLEN, KIM DEEN,
CHRISTINE BROWN, VIPIN SHAH, TERRI
BRYANT, DR. JAMES SLEDGE, UNKNOWN
PARTY, DR. LOUIS SCHICKER, LARSON, and
WEXFORD HEALTH SERVICES, INC.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“Report”) (Doc.
52) of Magistrate Judge Philip M. Frazier recommending that the Court deny plaintiff Robin
Smith’s motion for a preliminary injunction (Doc. 39). Magistrate Judge Frazier found that Smith
has not shown he has a likelihood of success on his claim of deliberate indifference to his serious
medical needs in light of the evidence that he has and is receiving medical attention for his health
problems. Magistrate Judge Frazier further found Smith has not shown he will suffer irreparable
harm if an injunction is not granted.
The Court may accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations of the magistrate judge in a report and recommendation. Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b)(3). The Court must review de novo the portions of the report to which objections are made.
Id. “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).

Smith has not objected to the Report but he has, for the second time, asked the Court for an
extension of time to submit support for his motion (Doc. 64). However, the briefing on the
pending motion is complete, and Magistrate Judge Frazier has recommended a resolution of the
motion. While the Court is generally not opposed to extending objection deadlines, it appears
Smith does not want to object but instead wants to extend the briefing schedule so he can better
support his motion after consulting with a jailhouse lawyer and receiving further discovery. In
light of the fact that Smith may file a new motion for preliminary injunctive relief at any time, the
Court is not inclined to prolong the briefing on the pending motion. The Court will therefore
assess the Report as if no objections have been filed.
The Court has reviewed the entire file and finds that the Report is not clearly erroneous.
Accordingly, the Court hereby:


ADOPTS the Report in its entirety (Doc. 52);



DENIES Smith’s motion for an extension of time to respond (Doc. 64);



DENIES Smith’s motion to supplement objection (Doc. 65), which the Court construes as
a motion for a hearing; and



DENIES without prejudice Smith’s motion for a preliminary injunction (Doc. 39).

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: June 2, 2014
s/J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
DISTRICT JUDGE

2