Washington v. Goldsborough et al

Filing 67

ORDER ADOPTING 66 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel on 8/3/15. (mah)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
BURL WASHINGTON,
Plaintiff,
vs.
DAVID GOLDSBOROUGH, STEVEN
HOFFIMEIR, FRANK FESTER, JASON
JONES, and B. AUTERSON,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 13-CV-613-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. 66), which recommends that the undersigned
grant the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants Frank Fester, Jason Jones, and
B. Auterson (Doc. 33), the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant David
Goldsborough (Doc. 53), and the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant Steven
Hoffmeier (Doc. 60). Each motion asserts that Plaintiff Burl Washington failed to exhaust
his administrative remedies prior to filing this lawsuit. The Report and Recommendation
was entered on July 13, 2015. No objections have been filed.
On July 30, 2012, Plaintiff Burl Washington, an inmate currently incarcerated at
Williamsburg Federal Correctional Institution, filed this lawsuit pursuant to Bivens v. Six
Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) (see Doc. 2). Plaintiff’s claims relate to his
hospitalization at Barnes Hospital (“Barnes”) from March 16, 2012, to March 22, 2012.
Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that while at Barnes, Defendants retaliated against him in a

Page 1 of 3

number of ways including denying him access to the bathroom, confiscating his writing
materials and eye patch, turning down his air conditioner, striking him on his back and
head, and filing a false disciplinary charge against him.
On September 10, 2014, Defendants Fester, Jones, and Auterson moved for summary
judgment asserting that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing
this lawsuit (see Doc. 33). The Motion for Summary Judgment was adopted by Defendants
Goldsborough and Hoffmeier on December 1, 2014, and December 31, 2014, respectively
(see Docs. 53 and 60). Plaintiff, through appointed counsel, timely filed responses to each of
the motions for summary judgment (see Docs. 50, 55, and 64).
As required by Pavey v. Conley, 544 F.3d 739 (7th Cir. 2008), Magistrate Judge
Wilkerson held an evidentiary hearing on Defendants’ Motions on January 6, 2015.
Following the Pavey hearing, Magistrate Judge Wilkerson issued the Report and
Recommendation currently before the Court (Doc. 66). The Report and Recommendation
accurately states the nature of the evidence presented by both sides on the issue of
exhaustion, as well as the applicable law and the requirements of the administrative
process.
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). The Court may accept, reject, or modify the
magistrate judge’s recommended decision. Harper, 824 F. Supp. at 788. In making this
determination, the Court must look at all of the evidence contained in the record and give
fresh consideration to those issues to which specific objections have been made. Id., quoting

Page 2 of 3

12 Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure 3076.8, at p. 55 (1st ed. 1973)
(1992 Pocket Part). Where neither timely nor specific objections to the Report and
Recommendation are made, however, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), this Court need not
conduct a de novo review of the Report and Recommendation. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S.
140 (1985).
While a de novo review is not required here, the Court has carefully examined the
evidence and fully agrees with the detailed findings, analysis, and conclusions of
Magistrate Judge Wilkerson. In the Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge
Wilkerson judiciously outlined the documentary and testimonial evidence regarding each
of the eight grievances submitted by the parties. Magistrate Judge Wilkerson also
thoroughly discussed his conclusions with respect to the claims exhausted by Plaintiff
during the administrative process. 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. 66). This action is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to
exhaust administrative remedies. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment
accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: August 3, 2015
s/ Nancy J. Rosenstengel
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
United States District Judge

Page 3 of 3