Young v. Eovaldi et al

Filing 76

ORDER: As set forth in the attached Order, Magistrate Judge Wilkerson's Report & Recommendations (Docs. 73 & 74) are ADOPTED in thier entirety. Accordingly, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 47) is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is hereby DIRECTED to enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel on 9/23/2014.(nrl)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
CHRISTOPHER E. YOUNG,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
SGT EOVALDI, LT. PAGE, C/O
)
MCCLURE, C/O GUTREUTER, and C/O )
B. LIVEINGSTON,
)
)
Defendants.
)

Case No. 3:13-CV-702-NJR-DGW

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ROSENSTENGEL, District Judge:
Plaintiff, Christopher Young, alleges claims related to his incarceration at Menard
Correctional Center. Plaintiff is proceeding on the following claims: 1) Excessive force
by Defendants Sgt. Eovaldi, C/O C. McClure, C/O Gutreuter, and C/O Liveingston,
related to an assault on March 24, 2012; and 2) Failure to Protect against Lt. Page for
failing to intervene in the assault on March 24, 2012. The case comes before the Court
on two Report and Recommendations entered on September 2, 2014, by Magistrate
Judge Donald G. Wilkerson (Docs. 73 & 74).
In the first Report and Recommendation (filed at Document 73), Magistrate Judge
Wilkerson recommends that the Motion for Summary Judgment on Exhaustion of
Administrative Remedies filed by Defendants Kevin Page and Frank Eovaldi (Doc. 47)
be granted and that the claims against Defendants Page and Eovaldi be dismissed
Page 1 of 3

without prejudice. Specifically, Magistrate Judge Wilkerson noted that Plaintiff did not
file an administrative grievance related to the claims pursued in this suit.
In the second Report and Recommendation (filed at Document 74), Magistrate
Judge Wilkerson recommends that the claims against C/O C. McClure, C/O Gutreuter,
and C/O B. Liveingston be dismissed without prejudice.

C/O C. McClure, C/O

Gutreuter, and C/O B. Liveingston are nonmovants, in that they have not been served
with process, have not entered an appearance, and are not listed as moving Defendants
in the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants Eovaldi and Page discussed
above.

However, Magistrate Judge Wilkerson found that Plaintiff did not file an

administrative grievance related to any of the claims pursued in this suit.
The parties were informed that their deadline for objecting to Magistrate Judge
Wilkerson’s Report and Recommendation was September 19, 2014—a date that has come
and gone. Because no party has filed an objection, the undersigned need not undertake
de novo review. 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.”) (emphasis added). See also Thomas v. Arn,
474 U.S. 140 (1985); Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 741 (7th Cir. 1999); Video
Views, Inc. v. Studio 21, Ltd., 797 F.2d 538 (7th Cir. 1986).
The undersigned accordingly ADOPTS in its entirety Magistrate Judge
Wilkerson’s Report & Recommendations (Docs. 73 & 74) and rules as follows: The
Court FINDS that Plaintiff has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with
Page 2 of 3

respect to both claims in this matter. Therefore, Defendants’ Motion for Summary
Judgment on Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies (Doc. 47) is GRANTED, and the
claims against Defendants Lt. Page, Sgt. Eovaldi, C/O C. McClure, C/O Gutreuter, and
C/O B. Liveingston are DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk of Court is hereby
DIRECTED to enter judgment accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: September 23, 2014

s/ Nancy J. Rosenstengel
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
United States District Judge

Page 3 of 3