Pyles v. Nwaobasi et al

Filing 134

ORDER ADOPTING 133 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION and GRANTING 102 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants. This action is DISMISSED with prejudice. Signed by Chief Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel on 9/11/2019. (mlp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
CHRISTOPHER PYLES,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 3:13-CV-770-NJR-MAB

ROBERT SHEARING, WEXFORD
HEALTH SOURCES, INC., and
MARGARET NWAOBASI, Special
Representative of Samuel Nwaobasi,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ROSENSTENGEL, Chief Judge:
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate
Judge Mark A. Beatty, which recommends the undersigned grant the Motion for
Summary Judgment filed by Defendants (Doc. 102).
In July 2013, Plaintiff Christopher Pyles filed this civil rights lawsuit pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging he received inadequate medical care for his back pain while
incarcerated at Menard Correctional Center (Doc. 1). The case initially was dismissed in
September 2014 after the Court found that Pyles failed to exhaust his administrative
remedies before filing suit. The Seventh Circuit disagreed, however, and remanded the
case to the undersigned in August 2016. After engaging in discovery on the merits,
Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on August 31, 2018 (Docs. 102, 103).
On August 21, 2019, Judge Beatty entered the Report and Recommendation
currently before the Court, which recommends granting Defendants’ motion for several

Page 1 of 2

reasons (Doc. 133). Objections to the Report and Recommendation were due September
4, 2019; no objections were filed.
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); SDILLR 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). But, where neither timely nor specific
objections to the Report and Recommendation are made, this Court should only review
the Report and Recommendation for clear error. Johnson v. Zema Systems Corp., 170 F.3d
734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999). The Court 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).
While de novo review is not required here, the Court has reviewed Judge Beatty’s
Report and Recommendation for clear error. Following this review, the Court agrees with
his findings, analysis, and conclusions. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Judge Beatty’s
Report and Recommendation in its entirety (Doc. 133). The Motion for Summary
Judgment filed by Defendants (Doc. 102) is GRANTED. This action is DISMISSED with
prejudice, and the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment accordingly and close
this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: September 11, 2019
____________________________
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
Chief U.S. District Judge

Page 2 of 2