Widmer v. Kilpatrick

Filing 30

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: The 20 Motion for Preliminary Injunction is DENIED. Signed by Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel on 7/11/2014. (ajt)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
MICHAEL WIDMER,
Plaintiff,
vs.
C/O KILPATRICK,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 3:13-CV-01154-NJR-PMF

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ROSENSTENGEL, District Judge:
On November 6, 2013, Plaintiff Michael Widmer filed a civil rights complaint
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that Defendant C/O Kilpatrick was deliberately
indifferent to his serious medical needs in violation of the cruel and unusual punishment
clause of the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution when Kilpatrick failed to get
Plaintiff medical care after being attacked by another inmate. The case comes before the
Court on a Report and Recommendation entered on June 19, 2014, by Magistrate Judge
Philip M. Frazier (Doc. 29).
In the Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Frazier recommends that
Plaintiff’s Motion for Injunctive Relief (Doc. 20) be denied (Doc. 29). The parties were
informed that their deadline for objecting to Magistrate Judge Frazier’s Report and
Recommendation was July 7, 2014—a date that has come and gone. Because no party has

Page 1 of 2

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 Court, after reviewing the record, cannot conclude that the Report and
Recommendation is clearly erroneous. See Johnson, 170 F.3d at 739 (“If no objection or
only partial objection is made, the district court judge reviews those unobjected portions
for clear error.”).
The undersigned accordingly ADOPTS the Report & Recommendation (Doc. 29)
in its entirety and rules as follows: the Motion for Injunctive Relief (Doc. 20) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: July 11, 2014
s/ Nancy J. Rosenstengel
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
United States District Judge

Page 2 of 2