Godfrey v. Harrington et al

Filing 126

ORDER GRANTING 110 Report and Recommendations and DENYING Defendant's motion for summary judgment 101 . Signed by Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel on 12/14/15. (ceg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
TOBY GODFREY,
Plaintiff,
vs.
RICHARD HARRINGTON, TRACY
HEIMAN, FRANK EOVALDI, and DR.
MICHAEL MOLDENHAUER,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 3:13-CV-280-NJR-DGW

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ROSENSTENGEL, District Judge:
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of United
States Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson (Doc. 110), which recommends that this
Court deny Defendant’s motion for summary judgment based on exhaustion (Doc. 101).
The Report and Recommendation was entered on September 23, 2015. No objections
have been filed.
Plaintiff filed this suit on March 20, 2013, claiming that various correctional
officers failed to protect him from a violent cell mate, Julie James, and that he was not
provided adequate medical care while he was an inmate at the Menard Correctional
Center (“Menard”). Plaintiff claims, more specifically, that Defendant, Dr. Moldenhauer,
failed to provide him with adequate medical care after his cellmate assaulted him (Count
4).
One June 16, 2015, Defendant Moldenhauer filed a Motion for Summary

Page 1 of 3

Judgment on the Issue of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies (Doc. 101). Plaintiff
did not respond to this motion. On March 16, 2015, Magistrate Judge Wilkerson found
that Plaintiff exhausted his administrative remedies with respect to the other Defendants
in this matter (Doc. 91). Defendant Moldenhauer argues that the grievance at issue did
not provide enough factual detail to identify him as a defendant.
On September 23, 2015, Magistrate Judge Wilkerson issued the Report and
Recommendation

currently

before

the

Court

(Doc.

110).

The

Report

and

Recommendation accurately states the nature of the evidence presented on the issue of
exhaustion, as well as the applicable law and the requirements of the administrative
process.
Where timely objections are filed, the 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 291, 301 (7th Cir. 1992). Where neither timely nor specific
objections to the Report and Recommendation are made, however, this Court need not
conduct a de novo review of the Report and Recommendation. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S.
140 (1985). Instead, the Court should review the Report and Recommendation for clear
error. Johnson v. Zema Systems Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999). A judge may then
“accept, reject, modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by
the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The Court has carefully reviewed Magistrate Judge Wilkerson’s Report and
Recommendation. Magistrate Judge Wilkerson thoroughly discussed the evidence and

Page 2 of 3

the Court fully agrees with his findings, analysis, and conclusions with respect to the
issue of exhaustion. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff exhausted his
administrative remedies with respect to Defendant Moldenhauer prior to filing this
lawsuit.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Wilkerson’s Report and
Recommendation (Doc. 110) and DENIES Defendant Moldenhauer’s Motion for
Summary Judgment (Doc. 101).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: December 14, 2015
s/ Nancy J. Rosenstengel____
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
United States District Judge

Page 3 of 3