Mitts v. Martin et al

Filing 126

ORDER ADOPTING 117 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION and DENYING 94 Motion to Enforce filed by Plaintiff Joecephus Mitts. Signed by Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel on 9/6/2017. Signed by Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel on 9/6/2017. (mlp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
JOECEPHUS MITTS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
DR. PHIL MARTIN, STEPHEN
DUNCAN, RANDALL BAYLOR,
BRADLEY RUE, THOMAS SIMMONS,
C/O ZWILLING,
Defendants.

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

Case No. 3:15-CV-00811-NJR-DGW

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ROSENSTENGEL, District Judge:
This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of
Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson (Doc. 117), which recommends denying the
Motion to Enforce the Preliminary Injunction filed by Plaintiff Joecephus Mitts (Doc. 94).
For the reasons set forth below, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation in its
entirety.
Mitts, an inmate currently incarcerated at Centralia Correctional Center, alleges
that his constitutional rights were violated when medical personnel at Lawrence
Correctional Center delayed and denied treatment for his mycosis fungoides, a rare
T-cell lymphoma of the skin. Along with his complaint, Mitts filed a motion for
preliminary injunction (Doc. 3) asserting Defendants failed to comply with the treatment
recommendations of Dr. Hurley, an outside dermatologist, and impeded his ability to
attend necessary follow-up appointments. On March 29, 2016, the Court granted the
motion in part, ordering Defendants to facilitate a referral to Dr. Hurley to perform a
Page 1 of 4

follow-up exam within 30 days. The Order also stated that Mitts need not be seen for
additional follow-up care as long as he refused to receive UV phototherapy treatment.
Dr. Hurley examined Mitts on April 20, 2016, and recommended several medications
and treatments for his condition.
On September 1, 2016, Mitts filed the instant Motion to Enforce the Preliminary
Injunction, claiming that, since his transfer to Centralia, Dr. Santos refused to follow Dr.
Hurley’s recommendations. In response, Defendants argued that Dr. Santos saw Mitts
on July 8, 2016. Dr. Santos continued Mitts on his current doses of medications and
ordered him a special razor, but Mitts refused UV phototherapy treatment despite Dr.
Hurley’s recommendation to receive such therapy three times a week. When Mitts next
saw Dr. Santos on July 25, 2016, he finally agreed to undergo UV phototherapy
treatment, which began on August 31, 2016.
At a hearing on Mitts’s motion, Mitts informed Magistrate Judge Wilkerson that
he was receiving all of the recommended treatment, but that he did not have all the
personal protective gear required for his UV phototherapy treatment. The Director of
Nursing at Centralia testified that Mitts has been provided with safety googles and a
sock to cover his genitalia. Mitts also complained that he had not seen Dr. Hurley since
his appointment on April 20, 2016.
Based on this information, Magistrate Judge Wilkerson found that Mitts was not
entitled to preliminary injunctive relief. Mitts is receiving the treatment recommended
by Dr. Hurley and has been provided protective gear for the UV phototherapy
treatment. As such, he is not suffering irreparable harm due to Defendants’ failure to

Page 2 of 4

provide adequate medical treatment. Furthermore, although there was a gap in his
referrals to see an outside specialist, that gap was consistent with the Court’s order that
Mitts was not required to receive follow-up exams if he continued to refuse
phototherapy treatment. Once he did agree to the treatment, he was referred to see Dr.
Hurley in October 2016. Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Wilkerson concluded there has
been no inadequacy in Mitts’s treatment that may cause him to suffer immediate and
irreparable harm absent a preliminary injunction. The Report and Recommendation was
entered on June 6, 2017 (Doc. 117). No objections were filed.
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 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). The Court 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).
The Court has carefully reviewed Mitts’s motion, the record, and Magistrate
Judge Wilkerson’s Report and Recommendation. Following this review, the Court fully
agrees with the findings, analysis, and conclusions of Magistrate Judge Wilkerson and
finds no clear error. Mitts has not sufficiently demonstrated that he will suffer imminent,

Page 3 of 4

irreparable harm absent injunctive relief. See Planned Parenthood v. Commissioner of Indiana
State Dept. Health, 699 F.3d 962, 972 (7th Cir. 2012) (“To obtain a preliminary injunction,
the moving party must demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits, no
adequate remedy at law, and irreparable harm absent the injunction.”). Mitts is receiving
the treatment prescribed by Dr. Hurley, he is undergoing UV phototherapy treatment,
and he is being provided with personal protective gear for the UV phototherapy
treatment. While there was a gap in his referrals to see an outside specialist, the gap was
consistent with this Court’s order that a follow-up exam was not necessary if Mitts was
not undergoing UV phototherapy. Once he agreed to undergo the therapy, his follow up
exams resumed.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Wilkerson’s Report and
Recommendation (Doc. 117) in its entirety and DENIES Plaintiff Joecephus Mitts’s
Motion to Enforce Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 94).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: September 6, 2017
_____________________________
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
United States District Judge

Page 4 of 4