Strickland v. Godinez et al

Filing 61

ORDER ADOPTING Report and Recommendations 58 . Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction and/or Motion for Protective Order 2 is DENIED. Signed by Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel on 05/12/15.(mah)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
ERIK C. STRICKLAND,
Plaintiff,
vs.
S.A. GODINEZ, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 14-CV- 962-NJR- DGW

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ROSENSTENGEL, District Judge:
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of United
States Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson (Doc. 58), recommending that the Motion
for Preliminary Injunction and/or Protective Order (Doc. 2) filed by Plaintiff be denied.
The Report and Recommendation was entered on April 20, 2015, and no objections have
been filed.
Plaintiff Erik Strickland, an inmate at the Lawrence Correctional Center, filed this
action on September 3, 2014, alleging that the policies and practices of the Illinois
Department of Corrections (“IDOC”) have interfered with his ability to practice his
religion, Asatru (also known as Odinism) (Doc. 1). Plaintiff seeks declaratory and
injunctive relief as well as minimal damages. The following claims survived threshold
review:
Count 1:

Plaintiff’s Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons
Act (“RLUIPA”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1(a), the Free Exercise
Clause of the First Amendment against IDOC administrators
Director S.A. Godinez, Deputy Director Ty Bates, Deputy
Page 1 of 3

Director Donald Gaetz, and Chief Chaplain Steve Keim;
Count 2:

Plaintiff’s Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons
Act (“RLUIPA”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1(a), the Free Exercise
Clause of the First Amendment against Lawrence officials
Warden Marc Hodge, Warden Steve Duncan, Assistant
Warden Beth Tredway, Chaplain David Vaughn, and
Intelligence Officer Loy; and

Count 3:

Intelligence Officers Loy and Harper violated the Free
Exercise Clause of the First Amendment when they
threatened disciplinary action against plaintiff if he
proceeded to practice his region in a group setting.

(Doc. 8).

Along with his Complaint, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction
(Doc. 2).

In his Motion, Plaintiff seeks an injunction preventing Defendants from

“threatening or retaliating against plaintiff and/or Asatruar and refusing to permit
plaintiff and/or Asatru inmates full participation in proper group and individual
worship including the ownership of personal ritual items and medallions central to
their beliefs” (Doc. 2, pp. 1-2). Defendants filed a response to the Motion on February 5,
2015, asserting that Plaintiff failed to make the requisite showing to support the entry of
a preliminary injunction (Doc. 46). On February 11, 2015, a hearing was held in which
Plaintiff appeared by video-conference, and Defendants appeared by counsel.
Where timely objections are filed, this Court must undertake a de novo review of
the Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), (C); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b);
SDIL-LR 73.1(b); Harper v. City of Chicago Heights, 824 F. Supp. 786, 788 (N.D. Ill. 1993);
see also Govas v. Chalmers, 965 F.2d 298, 301 (7th Cir. 1992). Where neither timely nor
specific objections to the Report and Recommendation are made, however, this Court
need not conduct a de novo review of the Report and Recommendation. See Thomas v.

Page 2 of 3

Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Instead, the Court should review the Report and
Recommendation for clear error. Johnson v. Zema Systems Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th
Cir. 1999). A judge may then “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings
or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The Court has carefully reviewed Magistrate Judge Wilkerson’s Report and
Recommendation. Magistrate Judge Wilkerson carefully laid out the documentary and
testimonial evidence, and he thoroughly discussed his conclusion that Plaintiff is not
entitled to the extraordinary relief of a preliminary injunction at this stage in the
proceedings. The Court fully agrees with the findings, analysis, and conclusions of
Magistrate Judge Wilkerson.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Wilkerson’s
Report and Recommendation (Doc. 58). Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction
and/or Protective Order (Doc. 2) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: May 12, 2015
s/ _Nancy J. Rosenstengel___
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
United States District Judge

Page 3 of 3