Young v. Camp et al

Filing 113

ORDER ADOPTING 111 Report and Recommendations and GRANTING IN PART and DENYING IN PART 86 Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendants Gregory James, Jon Camp, and Jeffrey Hastings are DISMISSED without prejudice.This case will proceed on Count One for failure to protect in violation of the Eighth Amendment against Defendants Jason Bradley, Bart Lind, Sean Furlow, and Michael Clark and Count Two for deliberate indifference against Defendant Vipin Shah. Signed by Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel on 3-19-15. (klh2)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
CHRISTOPHER E. YOUNG,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JON M. CAMP, JASON BRADLEY,
BART LIND, SEAN FURLOW,
GREGORY JAMES, MICHAEL CLARK,
VIPIN K. SHAH, and
JEFFREY HASTINGS,
Defendants.

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

Case No. 13-CV-553-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. 111), which recommends granting
the Motion for Summary Judgment on the issue of exhaustion filed on August 22, 2014,
by Defendants Jon Camp, Jason Bradley, Bart Lind, Sean Furlow, Gregory James,
Michael Clark, and Jeffrey Hastings (Doc. 86).1
Plaintiff Christopher Young is an inmate in the custody of the Illinois Department
of Corrections at Stateville Correctional Center. He filed this pro se lawsuit pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 on June 12, 2013, alleging that Defendants violated his constitutional rights
while he was incarcerated at Pinckneyville Correctional Center. The Court conducted a
threshold review of the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and Plaintiff was

1

Defendant Vipin Shah has not moved for summary judgment on the issue of exhaustion.

Page 1 of 4

allowed to proceed against Defendants Camp, Bradley Lind, Furlow, James, Clark, and
Hastings for failure to protect and against Defendants Camp, Hastings, and Shah for
deliberate indifference (Doc. 10).
On August 22, 2014, all Defendants (with the exception of Vipin Shah) moved for
summary judgment arguing that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies
as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997(e) (Doc. 86). Plaintiff
filed a timely response in opposition to the motion for summary judgment (Docs. 100,
101). As required by Pavey v. Conley, 544 F.3d 739 (7th Cir. 2008), Magistrate Judge
Wilkerson held an evidentiary hearing on the issue of exhaustion on December 1, 2014
(Doc. 109). Following the Pavey hearing, Magistrate Judge Wilkerson issued a Report and
Recommendation on February 25, 2015 (Doc. 111). He found that there were two
relevant grievances dated December 17, 2010 and February 8, 2012. He concluded that
Plaintiff fully exhausted the December 17th grievance as to Defendants Bradley, Lind,
Furlow, and Clark for failure to protect, but not Defendant James. He further concluded
that Plaintiff completed the grievance process with respect to the February 8th
grievance, but it was insufficient to establish exhaustion on his claims against
Defendants Camp and Hastings for failure to protect and deliberate indifference.
Accordingly, he recommended granting in part and denying in part the motion for
summary judgment.
Objections to the Report and Recommendation were due on or before March 16,
2015 (see Doc. 64). See also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(2); SDIL-LR 73.1(b).
Neither party filed an objection.

Page 2 of 4

Where timely objections are filed, this 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 298, 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, or 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 the briefs and exhibits submitted by the parties,
as well as Magistrate Judge Wilkerson’s Report and Recommendation. Magistrate Judge
Wilkerson carefully laid out the documentary and testimonial evidence, and thoroughly
discussed his conclusion that Plaintiff exhausted his administrative remedies with
respect to some of the Defendants, but not others. The Court fully agrees with the
findings, analysis, and conclusions of Magistrate Judge Wilkerson regarding the issue of
exhaustion.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Wilkerson’s Report and
Recommendation (Doc. 111). Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on the issue of
exhaustion (Doc. 86) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Defendants James,
Camp, and Hastings are DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to exhaust
administrative remedies.

Page 3 of 4

This case will proceed on Count One for failure to protect in violation of the
Eighth Amendment against Defendants Bradley, Lind, Furlow, and Clark and Count
Two for deliberate indifference against Defendant Vipin Shah.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 19, 2015
s/ Nancy J. Rosenstengel
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
United States District Judge

Page 4 of 4