Ivy v. Spiller et al

Filing 124

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 108 ): Defendants' MOTIONS for Summary Judgment (Docs. 59 & 63 ) are GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close the case. Signed by Judge Staci M. Yandle on 4/6/2017. (gdk)

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

JOHNATHAN IVY,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
vs.
THOMAS SPILLER, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 15-CV-331-SMY-RJD

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
YANDLE, District Judge:
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge Philip M. Frazier (Doc. 108) recommending that Defendants’ motions for
summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies (Docs. 59 and 63) be granted. 1
Plaintiff filed a timely objection to the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 109).

For the

following reasons, the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Frazier is ADOPTED
in its entirety.
Plaintiff Johnathan Ivy is an inmate with the Illinois Department of Corrections
(“IDOC”) and he filed suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 asserting that the defendants violated
his rights under the Eighth Amendment. Ivy states in his complaint that his Eighth Amendment
rights were violated at Pinckneyville Correctional Center (“Pinckneyville”) because the facility
implemented a “two meals a day” policy where inmates are no longer served breakfast. As a
result, Ivy did not have any food to take along with his morning medication. Also, Ivy states that
his health was negatively affected by the prison food because it contained too much soy.
1

Magistrate Judge Frazier has retired from the Court and this case has been reassigned to Magistrate Judge Reona J. Daly.

1

On April 15, 2015, Ivy’s Complaint was screened pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A,
and he was permitted to proceed on the following claims:
Count 1: Eighth Amendment claim against Defendants Spiller (Pinckneyville
Warden) and Shah (Wexford Doctor), for deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s
medical need to be given food or milk to take with his morning medications,
Count 2: Eighth Amendment claim against Defendants Spiller, Shah, Bates
(Deputy Director of IDOC), and Bailey (Pinckneyville Food Service
Administrator) for deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s need for a non-soy diet
in light of the serious physical symptoms he has experienced from his
consumption of soy-based foods.
The defendants moved for summary judgment on the basis that Ivy failed to exhaust
administrative remedies before filing suit. Judge Frazier held a Pavey evidentiary hearing
on June 28, 2016 with Ivy in attendance pro se from Menard Correctional Center via
videoconference. See Pavey v. Conley, 544 F.3d 739 (7th Cir. 2008). Based on the
testimony and records presented during the hearing, Judge Frazier found: that the IDOC
administrative remedies process was not unavailable to Ivy; that records filed by Ivy and the
defendants demonstrate that Ivy was able to utilize the IDOC grievance process in late 2014
through early 2015; that IDOC staff did respond to his grievances; that Ivy’s credibility was
significantly diminished in light of the fact that he received a response to his February
20, 2015 grievance concerning medical issues unrelated to this lawsuit; and that the
grievances Ivy did submit did not address the issues in this lawsuit. As a result, Judge Frazier
concluded that Ivy did not properly exhaust his available administrative remedies prior to
filing suit and therefore, Defendants are entitled to summary judgment.
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

2

Govas v. Chalmers, 965 F.2d 298, 301 (7th Cir. 1992). Upon review of the record in the case
and Judge Frazier’s Report, the Court finds that the grievance process was available to Ivy in late
2014 and early 2015.

In fact, Ivy utilized the procedure during this period and received

responses. However, the grievances he submitted addressed issues unrelated to the claims in this
case. The 3 grievances Ivy attached to his Complaint were not submitted to the ARB for
disposition as was required in order for Ivy to complete the grievance process. Thus, the Court
fully agrees with Judge Frazier’s findings, analysis and conclusions and adopts his Report and
Recommendation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: April 6, 2017
s/ Staci M. Yandle
STACI M. YANDLE
United States District Judge

3