Wilson v. Rensing et al

Filing 36

ORDER ADOPTING 35 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS and GRANTING 27 Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendant Major D. Cleland and Defendant Major R. Hammonds are DISMISSED without prejudice. The only claim that remains in this action is Plaintiff's retaliation claim against Defendant Patricia Rensing. Signed by Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel on 10/24/2016. (bak)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
MICHAEL S. WILSON,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
PATRICIA RENSING, MAJOR D.
)
CLELAND, and MAJOR R. HAMMONDS, )
)
Defendants.
)

Case No. 15-CV-1249-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. 35), which recommends that this Court grant
the Motion for Summary Judgment (Docs. 27 and 28) filed by Defendant Major D. Cleland
(“Cleland”) and Defendant Major R. Hammonds (“Hammonds”). The Report and
Recommendation was entered on September 20, 2016. No objections have been filed.
Plaintiff Michael S. Wilson (“Wilson”), an inmate in the custody of the Illinois
Department of Corrections, filed this case on November 10, 2015, asserting his constitutional
rights were violated. Wilson originally named twenty-seven defendants and set forth fifteen
separate claims related to incidents that allegedly occurred at Illinois River Correctional
Center and Pinckneyville Correctional Center. After an initial screening of Wilson’s
Complaint, the Court allowed Wilson to proceed on one count in this action, and several
other counts that were severed into separate actions. The only count pending in this action is
a retaliation claim against Defendants Patricia Rensing (“Rensing”), Cleland, and
Hammonds.

Page 1 of 3

On May 17, 2016, Defendants Cleland and Hammonds filed a motion for summary
judgment on the basis that Wilson failed to exhaust his administrative remedies before
bringing suit against them (Docs. 27 and 28). Wilson did not respond to the motion
summary judgment, despite being warned of the perils of failing to file a response (Doc. 29).
Due to Wilson’s transfer to Big Muddy Correctional Center, Magistrate Judge Wilkerson
extended the response deadline, sua sponte, to August 15, 2016 (Wilson’s original response
deadline was June 20, 2016) (Doc. 32). Wilson never filed a response.
On September 20, 2016, Magistrate Judge Wilkerson issued the Report and
Recommendation currently before the Court (Doc. 35). The Report and Recommendation
accurately states the nature of the evidence presented on the issue of exhaustion, as well as
the applicable law and the requirements of the administrative process.
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). The Court may accept, reject or modify the
magistrate judge’s recommended decision. Harper, 824 F. Supp. at 788. In making this
determination, the Court must look at all of the evidence contained in the record and give
“fresh consideration to those issues to which specific objections have been made.” Id.,
quoting 12 Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure 3076.8, at p. 55 (1st ed.
1973) (1992 Pocket Part).
Where neither timely nor specific objections to the Report and Recommendation are
made, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b), however, this Court need not conduct a de novo review of
the Report and Recommendation. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). While a de novo

Page 2 of 3

review is not required here, the Court has considered the evidence and fully agrees with the
findings, analysis, and conclusions of Magistrate Judge Wilkerson.
The Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Wilkerson that Wilson has not exhausted his
administrative remedies. Specifically, the December 14, 2012 grievance fails to name,
mention, or sufficiently describe Defendants Cleland and Hammonds or the actions giving
rise to Wilson’s claim against them. Further, Wilson has provided no evidence to dispute the
assertions set forth in Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, despite being given
ample time and opportunity to do so and despite being warned on two occasions that his
failure to file a response to the motion for summary judgment may be considered an
admission of the merits (See Docs. 29 and 32). Because it is apparent to the Court that Wilson
did not fully exhaust his administrative remedies as to Defendants Cleland and Hammonds
prior to filing suit, his claims against these Defendants must be dismissed.
The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Wilkerson’s Report and Recommendation
(Doc. 35) and GRANTS the Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 27) filed by Defendant
Cleland and Defendant Hammonds. Defendants Cleland and Hammonds are DISMISSED
without prejudice. The only claim that remains in this action is Wilson’s retaliation claim
against Defendant Rensing.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: October 24, 2016
____________________________
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
United States District Judge

Page 3 of 3