Mitchell v. Baker et al

Filing 68

ORDER ADOPTING 63 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Denying 51 Motion for Contempt; Granting 67 MOTION for Hearing re 64 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction MOTION and Immediate Transfer filed by Calvin Mitchell. The undersigned REFERS Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction 64 to Judge Williams for an evidentiary hearing (as soon as practicable) and R&R. Signed by Judge Michael J. Reagan on 05/08/14. (dkd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
CALVIN MITCHELL,
,
Plaintiff,
vs.
WARDEN RICHARD HARRINGTON
and C/O STEPHEN BAKER 1,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 13–cv–0860–MJR–SCW

ORDER
REAGAN, District Judge:
Before the Court in this § 1983 civil rights case are two motions: Plaintiff’s
Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 51), and Plaintiff’s “Emergency Motion” (Doc. 67) for a
hearing on his motion for preliminary injunction. Both the underlying case and
Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief focus on the purported threat posed to
Plaintiff’s safety by Defendant Baker, a Correctional Officer at Menard Correctional
Center (where Plaintiff resides).
According to Defendants’ response to an earlier motion for injunctive relief,
Baker was on indefinite medical leave during early 2014.

The undersigned

therefore declined to transfer Plaintiff via an injunction, but directed Defendant
Harrington to inform the Court promptly should Defendant Baker return to work.

Post-complaint pleadings and motions have clarified that Defendant Baker’s first name is Stephen.
The Clerk is therefore DIRECTED to edit the docket sheet to reflect Defendant’s proper name,
replacing “C/O S Baker” with “C/O Stephen Baker.”
1

1

Baker returned to work on March 11 or 12, 2014, but Harrington did not inform the
Court.
Plaintiff both moved for sanctions against Defendants (for violating the
Court’s directive re: Baker’s return), and filed another motion for preliminary
injunction, again seeking for the Court to order a transfer away from Menard.
Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief ripened on May 5, 2014, and a day later he
filed an “Emergency Motion” for a hearing.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 51) is DENIED.

Magistrate Judge

Williams, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(B) and (c), Federal Rule 72(b), and
Local Rule 72.1(a), entered an April 18, 2014 Report and Recommendation (R&R) in
which—after a hearing—he found defense counsel never received notice of the
directive (and so never passed it along to Defendant Harrington). Judge Williams
recommended denying the sanctions motion. Plaintiff has failed to file a timely
objection to the R&R, and has therefore waived his right to do so.

Banco Del

Atlantico, S.A. v. Woods Indus. Inc., 519 F.3d 350, 354 (7th Cir. 2008). The R&R
(Doc. 63) is therefore ADOPTED in full, and Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions (Doc.
D
51) is DENIED.
In moving for a hearing, Plaintiff again raises his safety vis-à-vis Defendant
Baker, who (Plaintiff alleges) has physically and verbally abused him at least twice
since his return from leave. Plaintiff’s Motion for Hearing (Doc. 67) is GRANTED.
D
Per the referral order in this case, the undersigned REFERS Plaintiff’s Motion for

2

Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 64) to Judge Williams for an evidentiary hearing (as
soon as practicable) and R&R.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Michael J. Reagan
MICHAEL J. REAGAN
United States District Judge

DATE: May 8, 2014

3