Bankston v. IDOC et al

Filing 168

ORDER ADOPTING 166 Report and Recommendations and DENYING 162 Motion to Dismiss: The Court fully agrees with the findings, analysis, and conclusions of Judge Beatty and ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. The Motion to Dismiss filed by Sterrett (Doc. 162) is DENIED. Signed by Chief Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel on 6/18/2019. (jmp2)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
JOHNNIE BANKSTON,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 3:15-CV-1275-NJR-MAB

MNICHAEL WILLIAMS, JEFFREY
DENNISON, and SAMUEL STERRETT,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ROSENSTENGEL, Chief Judge:
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of United
States Magistrate Judge Mark A. Beatty (Doc. 166), which recommends denying the
motion to dismiss filed by Samuel Sterrett (Doc. 162).
Plaintiff Johnnie Bankston is an inmate in the Illinois Department of Correction,
who is currently incarcerated at Shawnee Correctional Center (“Shawnee”) (Doc. 129).
He brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for various violations of his constitutional
rights (Doc. 129). According to the Third Amended Complaint, Sterrett is the Chaplain at
Shawnee and is responsible for conducting and supervising religious activities (Id.).
Bankston alleges Sterrett has denied him religious services and a diet conforming to his
religious tenets (Id.). Bankston brings two counts against Sterrett, in his individual and
official capacity:

Page 1 of 3

Count 1—First Amendment claim for denial of religious services
Count 3—First Amendment claim for a non-conforming kosher
diet. 1
Sterrett moves to dismiss these counts, arguing Bankston has failed to properly
allege he was personally involved in the constitutional deprivations (Doc. 162). On May
15, 2019, Judge Beatty issued a Report and Recommendation, which recommends
denying Sterrett’s motion (Doc. 166). Judge Beatty reasons that Bankston specifically
alleges that Sterrett is responsible for conducting and supervising religious activities at
Shawnee, which is sufficient to satisfy the federal pleading standards (Id.). The parties
did not file objections to the Report and Recommendation, which were due May 29, 2019
(Id.).
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); SDILLR 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). 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).
The Third Amended Complaint alleges four counts, but Bankston voluntarily dismissed counts 2 and 4
(Doc. 145).

1

Page 2 of 3

The Court has carefully reviewed the briefs submitted by the parties, as well as
Judge Beatty’s Report and Recommendation. Following this review, the Court fully
agrees with the findings, analysis, and conclusions of Judge Beatty and ADOPTS the
Report and Recommendation in its entirety. The Motion to Dismiss filed by Sterrett
(Doc. 162) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: June 18, 2019
___________________________
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
Chief U.S. District Judge

Page 3 of 3