Rayford v. Childers et al

Filing 78

ORDER ADOPTING Report and Recommendation 77 and DENYING 64 Motion for Summary Judgment: For the reasons set forth in the attached Order, the Court ADOPTS in its entirety Judge Williams' R&R (Doc. 77) and DENIES Defendants' summary judgment motion (Doc. 64). Signed by Chief Judge Michael J. Reagan on 2/16/16. (soh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
JAMIL RAYFORD,
Plaintiff,
vs.
TERRY CHILDERS,
MICHAEL DEAN,
DEREK HUNDLEY,
CHRIS CALES,
MATT WINKA,
DARRELL SELBY,
CHRIS BRANT,
ERIC ADAMSON
ROBERT KIDWELL
ALAN DALLAS
DEREK JOHNSON,
and COLLIN RAY,
Defendants.

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

Case No. 14-cv-1290-MJR-SCW

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT & RECOMMENDATION
REAGAN, Chief Judge:
While incarcerated at Pontiac Correctional Center, Jamil Rayford (Plaintiff) filed
suit in this Court under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging deprivation of his federally-secured
constitutional rights based on a series of events occurring while he was confined at
Lawrence Correctional Center (within this Judicial District). On threshold review of
Plaintiff’s complaint under 28 U.S.C. 1915A, the undersigned divided the claims into
seven counts, which the Court found to state colorable claims. The Court dismissed one
Defendant (the Illinois Department of Corrections) but ordered service and directed the
case to proceed against 12 correctional officers/defendants.
1

More specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Childers used excessive force
against him on September 3, 2014 (Count 1), that Defendants Dean, Hundley, Cales,
Kidwell, Brant, Winka, Selby, and Adamson used excessive force against him on
September 17, 2014 (Count 2) and were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs
after the assault (Count 3), that eight Defendants retaliated against him by, inter alia,
withholding meals and intercepting his mail (Count 4), that Defendant Johnson
retaliated against Plaintiff by withholding meals (Count 5), that Defendants Dallas and
Ray retaliated against Plaintiff by failing to accept and process grievances (Count 6),
and that the Defendants who used excessive force against him on September 17, 2014
denied him equal protection (Count 7).
On August 10, 2015, the 12 Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment
and supporting memorandum, arguing that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his
administrative remedies before filing this lawsuit (Docs. 64-65). Plaintiff opposed the
motion with a response asserting, inter alia, that he submitted grievances to Defendants
Winka, Adamson, and Selby, but they destroyed the grievances.

Plaintiff also

maintained that he specifically turned in grievances to Defendant Ray, but Ray told
Plaintiff he could not process the grievances. Due to a dispute of fact relating to the
issue of exhaustion, Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Williams conducted an evidentiary
hearing pursuant to Pavey v. Conley, 544 F.3d 739, 740-41 (7th Cir. 2008). Plaintiff
testified at the hearing, and exhibits were received in evidence by the Court.
On January 26, 2016, Judge Williams submitted a Report and Recommendation
(Doc. 77), recommending that the undersigned District Judge deny Defendants’ motion.
2

Judge Williams set a deadline by which objections to the Report and Recommendation
must be filed. That deadline (February 12, 2016) elapsed, and (as of February 16, 2016)
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. 77), and DENIES Defendants’ motion for summary judgment based on
exhaustion (Doc. 64).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED February 16, 2016.
s/ Michael J. Reagan
Michael J. Reagan
United States District Judge

3