Bentz et al v. Butler et al

Filing 107

ORDER ADOPTING 99 Report and Recommendations and DENYING 84 Motion for Reconsideration and DENYING 89 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel on 11/21/16. (klh2)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
DAVID ROBERT BENTZ,
Plaintiff,
vs.
KIMBERLY BUTLER, AIMEE LANG,
BILL WESTFALL, JAMES BEST,
FRANK EOVALDI,
MICHAEL SAMUELS,
NICHOLAS BEBOUT, CLINT MAYER,
JOSHUA BERNER, SHANE QUANDT,
JASON REDNOUR,
DONALD LINDENBERG,
JARED PHILLIPS, and
JAY MCMILLAN,
Defendants.

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

Case No. 14-CV-996-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. 99), which recommends denying as
moot the “Motion for Reconsideration of Preliminary Injunction . . . “ filed by Plaintiff
David Bentz on June 15, 2016 (Doc. 84), and the “Second Motion for Emergency
Preliminary Injunction . . . “ filed by Bentz on July 18, 2016 (doc. 89)
Plaintiff David Bentz is an inmate in the Illinois Department of Corrections at
Menard Correctional Center. He filed this pro se lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
challenging the conditions of his confinement. In particular, Bentz claimed that during
the summer of 2014 temperatures in his cell regularly exceeded 90 degrees Fahrenheit
Page 1 of 4

and the prison failed to make health and safety checks throughout the day and failed to
provide inmates with ice water, fans, or any form of relief from the heat. When Bentz
filed his original complaint in September 2014, he sought preliminary injunctive relief
(Docs. 1, 18), but his request was denied (Doc. 9, 33). He filed a motion to reconsider the
denial in June 2015 (Doc. 29). Although it was characterized as a motion to reconsider,
Bentz was actually seeking injunctive relief anew, and this request was also denied (Doc.
33).
Bentz tried again on June 15, 2016, by filing the “Motion for Reconsideration of
Preliminary Injunction . . . “ that is currently before the Court (Doc. 84). Once again, he
characterized his submission as a motion to reconsider, but it was actually a renewed
request for injunctive relief (see Doc. 84). After reviewing the motion, Magistrate Judge
Wilkerson determined that Bentz’s argument was deficient and also unsupported by any
evidence (Doc. 87). Bentz was given two weeks to shore up his argument, but he failed to
submit anything by the deadline on July 5, 2016 (see Doc. 88). Instead, Bentz just filed
another motion on July 18, 2016—the “Second Motion for Emergency Preliminary
Injunction . . . ,” which is also currently before the Court (Doc. 89). This time Bentz
claimed that prison officials retaliated against him for filing the first motion (Doc. 84) by
moving him to a segregation cell that was even worse; the cell had no ventilation, and
Bentz had no access to ice or ice water, no ability to summon correctional officers, and no
time in the yard or out of his cell (Doc. 89). Bentz further claimed that the heat
exacerbated his chronic hand pain and swelling, his neck injury, and his dental issues
(Doc. 89).

Page 2 of 4

Magistrate Judge Wilkerson determined that a hearing was not necessary on
Bentz’s requests for injunctive relief, and he issued the Report and Recommendation
currently before the Court on October 24, 2016 (Doc. 99). He indicated that the requests
for injunctive relief were now moot because the hot weather had abated until next
summer, and Bentz was out of segregation and had not indicated that he was currently
subjected to any other retaliatory acts (Doc. 99). Magistrate Judge Wilkerson further
indicated that even if Bentz’s requests were not moot, they should be denied because
Bentz failed to sufficiently argue that he met the standard for injunctive relief and failed
to provide any details, let alone evidence, of the adverse health effects he was allegedly
suffering from (Doc. 99).
Objections to the Report and Recommendation were due on or before November
10, 2016 (Doc. 99). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(2); SDIL-LR 73.1(b). No
objections were filed. Where neither timely nor specific objections to the Report and
Recommendation are made, the Court need not conduct a de novo review of the Report
and Recommendation. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). The Court can simply
review the Report and Recommendation for clear error. Johnson v. Zema Systems Corp.,
170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999). The Court 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 undersigned has carefully reviewed Bentz’s motion as well as Magistrate
Judge Wilkerson’s Report and Recommendation. Following this review, the
undersigned fully agrees with the findings, analysis, and conclusions of Magistrate

Page 3 of 4

Judge Wilkerson. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 99) is ADOPTED in its
entirety and Bentz’s motions for injunctive relief (Docs. 84 and 89) are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: November 21, 2016
s/ Nancy J. Rosenstengel
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
United States District Judge

Page 4 of 4