Hayes v. Johnson et al

Filing 49

ORDER: The Court ADOPTS Judge Williams' Report and Recommendation (Doc. 48 ) in its entirety and DENIES Plaintiff's motion to reconsider (Doc. 40 ). Signed by Chief Judge Michael J. Reagan on 11/16/15. (dkd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
LARRY C. HAYES, JR.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CHARLES JOHNSON, and
CHARLES HARRINGTON,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 14-cv-0347-MJR-SCW

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
REAGAN, Chief Judge:
Larry C. Hayes, Jr. currently is on probation but while incarcerated within this
Judicial District, he filed suit in this Court (Case No. 14-cv-0229) alleging that
correctional officers violated his federally-secured constitutional rights. On threshold
review of Hayes’ complaint, the undersigned found that Hayes had stated a cognizable
retaliation claim against correctional officer Johnson and a cognizable retaliation claim
against correctional officer Harrington. Those claims were mingled in with a host of
unrelated allegations. Pursuant to George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605 (7th Cir. 2007), the two
retaliation claims were severed into the above-captioned case (Case No. 14-cv-0347).
In January 2015, Johnson and Harrington (Defendants) moved for summary
judgment on the issue of exhaustion of administrative remedies. In June 2015, the
undersigned granted Defendants’ motion and dismissed the suit without prejudice,
after finding that the uncontested evidence showed that Hayes filed suit before
properly exhausting his administrative remedies (Doc. 38, p. 7). Part of the Court’s
1|Page

analysis (i.e., part of the reason supporting grant of Defendants’ motion) was that
Plaintiff had failed to respond to Defendants’ exhaustion-based motion. Judgment was
entered on June 10, 2015.
On June 29, 2015, Plaintiff Hayes filed a 39-page motion for reconsideration. The
motion explains that, in fact, Plaintiff did attempt to file a response opposing
Defendants’ summary judgment motion. He sent his response to the Clerk’s Office with
a pleading being filed in the companion case (Case No. 14-cv-0229), but the Clerk’s
Office erroneously returned the response to Plaintiff thinking he just wanted a filestamped duplicate copy for his own records.

Plaintiff attached his undocketed

summary judgment response to the motion to reconsider.
On October 2, 2015, United States Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Williams set a
hearing on Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider for October 21, 2015 at 1:00 p.m. The notice
stated that attendance at the hearing was mandatory (Doc. 42). Plaintiff Hayes did not
appear for the October 21, 2015 hearing.
On October 27, 2015, Judge Williams submitted a detailed 11-page Report and
Recommendation (Doc. 48, “the Report”). The Report thoroughly analyzes the response
Plaintiff endeavored to file to Defendants’ summary judgment motion, explains why
exhaustion-based dismissal still was required, and recommends that the undersigned
District Judge deny Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider.
Judge Williams set a deadline by which objections to the Report must be filed.
That deadline (November 13, 2015) elapsed without any objection being filed. As of
November 16, 2015, no party had objected to the Report and Recommendation.
2|Page

Accordingly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b), the undersigned Judge need not conduct de
novo review of the Report and Recommendation. 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.”). See
also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Johnson v. Zema Systems Corp., 170 F.3d 734,
741 (7th Cir. 1999); Video Views Inc., v. Studio 21, Ltd., 797 F.2d 538 (7th Cir. 1986).
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Judge Williams’ Report and Recommendation
(Doc. 48) in its entirety and DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider (Doc. 40).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED November 16, 2015.

s/Michael J. Reagan
Michael J. Reagan
United States District Judge

3|Page