Hartstein v. Pollman et al

Filing 44

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, The Court ADOPTS the Report (Doc. 32 ); OVERRULES Hartsteins objections (Doc. 38 ); and DENIES Hartsteins motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction (Doc. 26 ). Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 6/11/2014. (jdh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
KAREN HARTSTEIN,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 13-cv-1232-JPG-PMF

L. POLLMAN, DR. D. KRUSE and WARDEN
OF GREENVILLE CORRECTIONAL
CENTER,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“Report”) (Doc.
32) of Magistrate Judge Philip M. Frazier recommending that the Court deny plaintiff Karen
Hartstein’s emergency motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction
preventing her transfer from FCI-Greenville to another prison, which she believes will interfere
with her medical treatment (Doc. 26). Magistrate Judge Frazier did not make his
recommendation based on the merits of Hartstein’s underlying action but on the fact that she had
already been transferred from FCI-Greenville to another prison, so the defendants were no longer
her custodians and were no longer able to make decisions about her placement or about her
medical care. Hartstein has filed “objections” to the Report (Doc. 38), emphasizing the showing
she has made as to the defendants’ alleged deliberate indifference to her medical needs, but also
acknowledging that her request is now moot because of her transfer.
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.
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).
Here, Hartstein has captioned her filing in response to the Report as “objections,” but it is
not really an objection. Hartstein concedes that her request for a temporary restraining order and
preliminary injunction is moot in light of her transfer. See Higgason v. Farley, 83 F.3d 807, 811
(7th Cir. 1996) (transfer to another institution moots prisoner’s request for injunctive relief unless
he makes a showing that he will likely be retransferred to that first institution). Accordingly, the
Court reviews the Report for clear error and finds none. For this reason, the Court:
•

ADOPTS the Report (Doc. 32);

•

OVERRULES Hartstein’s “objections” (Doc. 38); and

•

DENIES Hartstein’s motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction
(Doc. 26).

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: June 11, 2014
s/ J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
DISTRICT JUDGE

2