Jones v. Dean et al

Filing 83

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 80 , DENYING 48 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, and GRANTING 50 and 26 Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment: For the reasons explained in the attached Order, the Court ADOPT S Judge Williams' Report and Recommendation (Doc. 80) in its entirety. The Court GRANTS Defendants' motions for summary judgment (dismissal) based on Plaintiff's failure to exhaust administrative remedies before filing this suit (D ocs. 26, 50), DENIES Plaintiff's summary judgment motion (Doc. 48), and based on the finding of Plaintiff's perjury and blatant deception (lying to the Court in the hearing before Judge Williams and falsifying documents submitted to the Co urt in connection with the hearing) DISMISSES with prejudice all of Plaintiff's claims herein. Judgment shall be entered in favor of Defendants Dean, Hundley, Brant, Cale and Kidwell and against Plaintiff. Signed by Chief Judge Michael J. Reagan on 6/24/15. (soh )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
COREY D. JONES,
Plaintiff,
vs.
MICHAEL DEAN,
DEREK HUNDLEY,
CHRIST BRANT,
CHRISTOPHER CALE,
and ROBERT KIDWELL,
Defendants.

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

Case No. 14-cv-1098-MJR-SCW

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDAITON
AND DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE
REAGAN, Chief Judge:
In October 2014, Corey D. Jones (Plaintiff), who then was incarcerated at
Lawrence Correctional Center, filed suit in this Court under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that
correctional officials physically assaulted him, retaliated against him, and failed to
properly investigate the incidents in question. On threshold review of the complaint in
a November 6, 2014 Order, the undersigned found that Plaintiff had stated six colorable
federal claims (for violation of his rights under the First and Eighth Amendment, see
Doc. 13, p. 5). Defendants appeared, the case proceeded, and motions were filed.
On June 4, 2015, the Honorable Stephen C. Williams, United States Magistrate
Judge, submitted a detailed 15-page Report and Recommendation (Doc. 80, “the
Report”). The Report recommends that the undersigned grant the summary judgment
motions filed by Defendants Brant, Dean and Hundley (Docs. 26, 50).
1|Page

The Report concludes not only that dismissal is warranted based on Plaintiff’s
failure to exhaust (which would be a dismissal without prejudice) 1 but that dismissal
with prejudice is warranted here as a sanction, because Plaintiff blatantly lied to Judge
Williams at an in-court hearing and falsified documents. Thus, the Report concludes
that the Court should grant Defendants’ summary judgment motions, deny Plaintiff’s
summary judgment motion, and dismiss all of Plaintiff’s claims against all Defendants
with prejudice (Doc. 80, p. 14).
Judge Williams set a deadline by which objections to the Report and
Recommendation must be filed. That deadline (June 22, 2015) 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).
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Judge Williams’ Report and Recommendation
(Doc. 80) in its entirety. The Court GRANTS Defendants’ motions for summary
judgment (dismissal) based on Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies
Exhaustion-based dismissals are made without prejudice. See,
e.g.,Walker v. Thompson, 288 F.3d 1005, 1009 (7th Cir. 2002) (“Dismissal
for failure to exhaust is without prejudice…”), and Ford v. Johnson, 362
F.3d 395, 401 (7th Cir. 2004) (“all dismissals under § 1997e(a) should be
without prejudice”).
1

2|Page

before filing this suit (Docs. 26, 50), DENIES Plaintiff’s summary judgment motion
(Doc. 48), and – based on the finding of Plaintiff’s perjury and blatant deception (lying
to the Court in the hearing before Judge Williams and falsifying documents submitted
to the Court in connection with the hearing) – DISMISSES with prejudice all of
Plaintiff’s claims herein.

Judgment shall be entered in favor of Defendants Dean,

Hundley, Brant, Cale and Kidwell and against Plaintiff.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED June 24, 2015.
s/ Michael J. Reagan
Michael J. Reagan
United States District Judge

3|Page