Adams v. Smith et al

Filing 100

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, The Court REJECTS the R & R (Doc. 33 ) and DENIES Adams motion as moot (Doc. 30 ); DENIES Adams appeals (Docs. 95 & 99 );GRANTS Adams motion for a copy of the docket (Doc. 98 ); and DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to mail a copy of the docket sheet to Byron Adams. Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 7/16/2014. (jdh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
BYRON E. ADAMS,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Case No. 13-cv-985-JPG-PMF

V. SMITH, MENARD CORRECTIONAL
CENTER and WARDEN,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on (1) the Report and Recommendation (“R & R”)
(Doc. 33) of Magistrate Judge Philip M. Frazier recommending this Court deny plaintiff Byron
E. Adams’ motion for injunctive relief (Doc. 30); (2) Adams’ appeal of Magistrate Judge
Frazier’s order denying recruitment of counsel (Doc. 95); (3) motion for list of all docket texts
(Doc. 98); and (4) motion to compel magistrate judge decision (Doc. 99). For the following
reasons, the Court (1) rejects the R & R and denies as moot Adams’ motion for injunctive relief,
(2) denies Adams’ appeals (Docs. 95 & 99) of Magistrate Judge Frazier’s orders; and (3) grants
Adams’ motion for a copy of the docket sheet.
1. Report and Recommendation (Doc. 33)
The Court may accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations of the magistrate judge in a report and recommendation. Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b)(3). The Court must review de novo the portions of the report to which objections are
made. The Court has discretion to conduct a new hearing and may consider the record before the
magistrate judge anew or receive any further evidence deemed necessary. Id. “If no objection or
only partial objection is made, the district court judge reviews those unobjected portions for clear

error.” Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999). Adams objected to the R
& R (Doc. 60). As such, the Court will review the R & R de novo.
In his motion for injunctive relief, Adams seeks a transfer out of Menard Correctional
Center (“Menard”) to Pontiac Correctional Center (“Pontiac”) and placement in protective
custody at Pontiac. Since Adams filed his motion, he was transferred to Pontiac. He has named
only Menard officials as defendants in this action and has not demonstrated he is likely to be
retransferred to Menard. Accordingly, any claim against the Menard defendants for injunctive
relief is now moot because he is no longer in custody at Menard. See Higgason v. Farley, 83
F.3d 807, 811 (7th Cir. 1996) (“If a prisoner is transferred to another prison, his request for
injunctive relief against officials of the first prison is moot unless he can demonstrate that he is
likely to be retransferred.”) Further, it appears Adams has received at least part of the relief
which he requested in the form of a transfer to Pontiac. For the foregoing reasons, the Court
rejects the R & R (Doc. 33) and denies Adams’ motion as moot (Doc. 30).
2. Magistrate Judge Appeal (Docs. 95 & 99)
Next, Adams appeals Magistrate Judge Frazier’s order denying recruitment of counsel.
On March 24, 2014, Magistrate Judge Frazier entered an order (Doc. 77) denying Adams’
motion to appoint counsel finding that Adams was competent to litigate this case at its present
stage. Magistrate Judge Frazier warned Adams that further motions for recruitment of counsel
would be summarily denied. On April 18, 2014, Adams filed another motion (Doc. 87) for
recruitment of counsel that Magistrate Judge Frazier summarily denied (Doc. 90). Adams now
appeals the denial of his second motion for recruitment of counsel (Doc. 95).
A district court reviewing a magistrate judge’s decision on nondispositive issues should
modify or set aside that decision if it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

2 

72(a); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). After a review of Magistrate Judge Frazier’s orders, this Court
concludes that the orders are neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. As such, the Court
denies Adams’ appeals (Docs. 95 & 99). Adams may renew his motion for recruitment of
counsel at a later stage of this litigation.
3. Motion for List of All Docket Texts (Doc. 98)
Finally, Adams seeks a printout of the docket entries in this case. The Court grants this
motion (Doc. 98) and directs the Clerk of Court to mail a copy of the docket sheet from this case
to Byron Adams.
4. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court


REJECTS the R & R (Doc. 33) and DENIES Adams’ motion as moot (Doc. 30);



DENIES Adams’ appeals (Docs. 95 & 99);



GRANTS Adams’ motion for a copy of the docket (Doc. 98); and



DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to mail a copy of the docket sheet to Byron Adams.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: July 16, 2014
s/ J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
DISTRICT JUDGE

3