Rogers v. Halford

Filing 24

ORDER The Court hereby ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Wilkerson's Report (Doc. 23 ) in its entirety, GRANTS in part (as to the payment of the court reporter's fee for the canceled deposition) and DENIES in part (as to the request for immediate di smissal of this suit) Defendant Halford's sanctions motion (Doc. 22 ), ORDERS Plaintiff to pay $82.00 to defense counsel (Htin Myat Win, Illinois Attorney General's Office, 500 South Second Street, Springfield, IL 62706) no later than May 26, 2014, and STAYS this case pending payment of the $82.00 sanction. Signed by Judge Michael J. Reagan on 05/05/14. (dkd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
JAMES L. ROGERS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
MARY HALFORD,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 13-cv-0304-MJR-DGW

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
REAGAN, District Judge:
While incarcerated at Vandalia Correctional Center within this Judicial District, James L.
Rogers (Plaintiff) filed suit against five Defendants (correctional officials and health care providers),
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1982. The complaint asserted that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to
Plaintiff’s serious medical needs (he is HIV-positive and has Hepatitis C), in contravention of the
Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The case was randomly assigned to the

Honorable G. Patrick Murphy, District Judge. On threshold review under 28 U.S.C. 1915A, Judge
Murphy concluded that the complaint stated a viable Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference
claim against one Defendant -- Mary Halford, the Director of Nursing at Vandalia Correctional
Center. Judge Murphy dismissed the other claims/Defendants, ordered service on Defendant
Halford, and referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson for pretrial proceedings.
After Halford answered the complaint, Judge Murphy set trial for the presumptive trial
month of May 2015. When Judge Murphy retired from the federal bench in December 2013, the
case was transferred to the undersigned District Judge. Now before the Court is a Report and
Recommendation (Report, Doc. 23) submitted by Judge Wilkerson as to Defendant Halford’s
February 21, 2014 motion for sanctions (Doc. 22). The Report recommends that the undersigned
District Judge partially grant and partially deny Halford’s motion for sanctions.
Page 1 of 3

Judge Wilkerson explains the following in the Report, inter alia: Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 37(d)(1)(1) permits the imposition of sanctions if a party fails to appear at his deposition;
Plaintiff received notice of the deposition and did not indicate a problem with the time or date;
Defendant’s counsel and a court reporter appeared at the deposition; Plaintiff failed to appear for his
deposition (but there is no indication that the failure was the result of willfulness, bad faith, or fault);
Defendant was prejudiced by Plaintiff’s failure to appear and participate in the deposition (e.g., the
discovery deadline has closed); Plaintiff failed to respond to Defendant’s motion for sanctions; and
Plaintiff has not provided any explanation for his failure to appear. The Report recommends that
the Court partially grant the sanctions motion as follows (Doc. 23, p. 3):
that Plaintiff be ordered to pay sanctions in the amount of $82.00 to Defendant’s
counsel within 30 days of the date of the District Court’s Order, that this matter be
STAYED pending payment of the sanction, [and] that this matter be dismissed with
prejudice, for want of prosecution and failure to comply with the Orders of the
Court, if Plaintiff fails to pay the sanction by the deadline….
The Report (which was dated and docketed April 1, 2014) stated that the parties had
fourteen days (after service of the Report) to file written objections thereto, and that failure to file a
timely objection could be treated as waiver of the right to challenge the recommendations contained
in the Report (Doc. 23, p. 3). A separate Notice (Doc. 23-1, p. 1) repeated the deadline for
objecting to the Report (April 18, 2014). As of May 5, 2014, the objection deadline had long
elapsed, and no party had filed any objections to the Report.
Accordingly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b), the undersigned Judge need not conduct de novo
review of the Report and Recommendations. 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).
Page 2 of 3

The Court hereby ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Wilkerson’s Report (Doc. 23) in its entirety,
GRANTS in part (as to the payment of the court reporter’s fee for the canceled deposition) and
DENIES in part (as to the request for immediate dismissal of this suit) Defendant Halford’s
sanctions motion (Doc. 22), ORDERS Plaintiff to pay $82.00 to defense counsel (Htin Myat Win,
Illinois Attorney General’s Office, 500 South Second Street, Springfield, IL 62706) no later than
May 26, 2014, and STAYS this case pending payment of the $82.00 sanction. 1 If defense counsel
receives payment, counsel should file a Status Report with the Court indicating the date and amount
of payment received.
Finally, Plaintiff is WARNED that failure to pay the $82.00 by the May 26, 2014 deadline
will result in dismissal of this case with prejudice for want of prosecution and failure to comply with
Orders of this Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED May 5, 2014
s/ Michael J. Reagan
Michael J. Reagan
United States District Judge

The records indicate Plaintiff Rogers is no longer confined at Vandalia
Correctional Center or any other Illinois Department of Corrections facility but rather
was paroled in June 2013. The last address provided by Plaintiff was in Urbana, Illinois.

1

Page 3 of 3