Merritte et al v. Ingram et al

Filing 184

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 176 ): Defendants Christine Clevy and Kim Brooks' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 134 ) is DENIED and Plaintiff's motion regarding exhaustion (Doc. 149 ) is hereby MOOT. Signed by Judge Staci M. Yandle on 9/19/2017. (mah)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

CALVIN MERRITTE,
Plaintiff,
vs.
S.A. GODINEZ, et. al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 15-CV-254-SMY-RJD

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
YANDLE, District Judge:
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge Reona J. Daly (“R&R”)(Doc. 176), recommending that this Court deny
Defendants Christine Brooks and Kim Clevy’s motion for summary judgment based on the
failure to exhaust administrative remedies (Doc. 134). No objections to the R&R have been
filed. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2); SDIL-LR 73.1(b).
Plaintiff Calvin Merritte filed this action, alleging violations of his constitutional rights
under the First, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Defendants Brooks and Clevy moved for
summary judgment, asserting that Plaintiff did not exhaust his administrative remedies prior to
filing suit.

Following a Pavey evidentiary hearing, Judge Daly issued her Report and

Recommendation, recommending that Defendants’ motion be denied.
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
Page 1 of 2

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, or
modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Judge Daly’s recommendation is fully discussed in the R&R and supported by the record.
The Court finds no error with respect to her findings, analysis and conclusion that Plaintiff
exhausted administrative remedies prior to filing suit.

Accordingly, the Report and

Recommendation is ADOPTED in its entirety.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: September 19, 2017
s/ Staci M. Yandle
STACI M. YANDLE
United States District Judge

Page 2 of 2