Brame v. Hodge et al

Filing 71

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION as to 51 Motion for Summary Judgment and 70 Report and Recommendation: For the reasons explained in the attached Order, the Court ADOPTS Judge Williams' Report and Recommendation (Doc. 70), GRANTS Plaintiff's oral motion to voluntarily dismiss Defendant Coe with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2), and DENIES AS MOOT Defendant Coe's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 51). Signed by Chief Judge Michael J. Reagan on 7/14/15. (soh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SHAUN BRAME,
Plaintiff,
vs.
MARK HODGE,
MARK STORM,
DAVID VAUGHN,
TONY KITTLE,
RYAN SCHOON,
SARAH JOHNSON,
T. KEEN, and
JOHN COE, M.D.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 14-cv-0410-MJR-SCW

ORDER DISMISSING DEFENDANT COE
REAGAN, Chief Judge:
In April 2014, Shaun Brame (Plaintiff) -- an inmate at Lawrence Correctional
Center -- filed suit in this Court under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging deprivation of his
federally-secured constitutional rights. He also presented claims under a federal statute
(RLUIPA, 42 U.S.C. 2000cc, et seq.) plus state law claims for battery and intentional
infliction of emotional distress. On threshold screening of the complaint under 28
U.S.C. 1915A, the undersigned determined that certain claims warranted dismissal but
that other claims would proceed, including a First Amendment free exercise claim for
damages, a First Amendment free exercise claim for injunctive relief, a RLUIPA claim
for injunctive relief, and the claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress (see
1

Doc. 8, p. 10). Service was ordered on eight Defendants: Vaughn, Coe, Hodge, Storm,
Kittle, Schoon, Johnson and Keen (id., p. 11). Defendants answered and appeared,
motions were filed and resolved. Six Defendants withdrew their affirmative defense of
exhaustion in November 2014 (Doc. 50).
On November 25, 2014, Defendant Coe moved for summary judgment (Doc. 51).
The Honorable Stephen C. Williams, the United States Magistrate Judge to whom the
case is referred, held a hearing June 26, 2015 on the summary judgment motion. At that
hearing, Plaintiff moved to voluntarily dismiss Defendant Coe with prejudice, pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2).
On June 26, 2015, Judge Williams submitted a Report (Doc. 70) recommending
that the undersigned District Judge grant Plaintiff’s motion for voluntary dismissal,
dismiss with prejudice Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Coe, and deny as moot
Defendant Coe’s summary judgment motion.
Judge Williams set a deadline by which objections to the Report and
Recommendation must be filed. That deadline elapsed, and no objection has been filed.
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).

2

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Judge Williams’ Report and Recommendation
(Doc. 70), GRANTS Plaintiff’s oral motion to voluntarily dismiss Defendant Coe with
prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2), and DENIES AS MOOT
Defendant Coe’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 51).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED July 14, 2015.
s/ Michael J. Reagan
Michael J. Reagan
Chief Judge
United States District Court

3