McCoy v. Edmeister et al

Filing 24

ORDER ADOPTING 20 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS and finding as MOOT 7 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel on 05/14/2015. (bak)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
CHRISTOPHER H. MCCOY,
Plaintiff,
vs.
ERIC T. EDMEISTER AND JEFFREY S.
WALTON,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 14-CV-1379-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. 20), which recommends that this
Court find as moot Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 7). The Report
and Recommendation was entered on April 20, 2015. No objections have been filed.
Plaintiff Christopher H. McCoy filed this case on December 15, 2014.

The

following claims survived threshold review:
Count 1: First Amendment claim against Defendant Edmeister for reading
and then confiscating Plaintiff’s privileged attorney-client correspondence
and documents;
Count 2: First Amendment claim against Defendant Walton for refusing to
return Plaintiff’s privileged attorney-client correspondence and
documents.
On January 15, 2015, Plaintiff also filed a Motion for Injunction (Doc. 7), which
Magistrate Judge Wilkerson has construed as a Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief.
In the motion, Plaintiff avers that officials at USP Marion, “all the way down to the
Page 1 of 3

defendant(s),” have taken retaliatory actions against him since he filed this suit (Doc. 7,
p. 2). Specifically, Plaintiff claims that administrative officials, through actions of staff
members or contracted third parties, placed a combination lock under Plaintiff’s
mattress on the afternoon of December 30, 2014, while he was out of his assigned cell, in
order to place Plaintiff in solitary confinement with no access to his legal documents.
Plaintiff claims that this action was taken to hinder his ability to litigate this case.
Plaintiff requests that he be given ample access to his legal files and other legal materials
and that his fabricated disciplinary ticket regarding the lock found in his property be
adjudicated immediately and that he be removed from segregation.
In response, Defendants assert that Plaintiff’s request for preliminary injunctive
relief is moot, or in the alternative, Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden of proof to
obtain a preliminary injunction. Defendants attach a declaration of William May, a
counselor at USP Marion, stating that, when Plaintiff was released from segregation,
forty-eight inches of legal material was returned to him, and there is no indication that
any materials were missing from his legal documents (Doc. 19-1, p. 3). Defendants also
attach a declaration of Melissa Bayless, a discipline hearing officer in the BOP’s North
Central Regional Officer, who states that Plaintiff’s incident report was investigated and
expunged on January 16, 2015, and he was promptly released from segregation on
January 20, 2015 (Doc. 19-2, p. 3).
Where timely objections are filed, the 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

Page 2 of 3

also Govas v. Chalmers, 965 F.2d 291, 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.
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, 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 thoroughly discussed the evidence and
the Court fully agrees with his findings, analysis, and conclusions with respect to
Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction. The evidence provided by Defendants
demonstrates that Plaintiff has had his legal materials returned to him and he has been
released from segregation, with the incident report expunged from his record.
Accordingly, the Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Wilkerson that the Motion for
Preliminary Injunction is now moot.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Wilkerson’s Report and
Recommendation (Doc. 20) and finds Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc.
7) MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: May 14, 2015
s/ Nancy J. Rosenstengel____________
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
United States District Judge

Page 3 of 3