Bankston v. IDOC et al

Filing 85

ORDER ADOPTING 83 Report and Recommendations and DENYING 49 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel on 8/2/2017. (klh2)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
JOHNNIE BANKSTON,
Plaintiff,
vs.
MICHAEL WILLIAMS, WILLIAM
CHRISTOPHER, and JEFFREY
DENNISON,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 15-CV-1275-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. 83), which recommends denying the motion
for summary judgment on the issue of exhaustion of administrative remedies filed by
Defendant Michael Williams (Doc. 49). Neither party filed an objection to the Report and
Recommendation. For the reasons explained below, the Court adopts Magistrate Judge
Wilkerson’s Report and Recommendation and denies the motion for summary judgment.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Johnnie Bankston, an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections
currently incarcerated at Shawnee Correctional Center, filed a pro se lawsuit pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 for deprivations of his constitutional rights (Doc. 1). Following a threshold
review of the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, Bankston was permitted to proceed
on a First Amendment claim and a claim under the Religious Land Use and Institutional
Persons Act (RLUIPA) against Defendant Michael Williams, the chaplain at Shawnee, based

Page 1 of 3

on Williams’s alleged refusal to hold services for the Nation of Gods and Earths, which is
the religion Bankston practices (Doc. 18).
Defendant Williams filed a motion for summary judgment on February 24, 2017,
arguing that Bankston failed to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing suit as
required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (Doc. 49). 1 Bankston filed a response in
opposition to the motion for summary judgment (Doc. 59). In accordance with Pavey v.
Conley, 544 F.3d 739 (7th Cir. 2008), Magistrate Judge Wilkerson held an evidentiary hearing
on the issue of exhaustion on July 5, 2017 (Doc. 82). On July 12, 2017, Magistrate Judge
Wilkerson issued the Report and Recommendation currently before the Court, in which he
recommends denying the motion for summary judgment (Doc. 83). Objections to the Report
and Recommendation were due on or before July 31, 2017. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R.
CIV. P. 72(b)(2); SDIL-LR 73.1(b). As previously mentioned, neither party filed an objection.
ANALYSIS
Where neither timely nor specific objections to the Report and Recommendation are
made, the Court need not conduct a de novo review. 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 undersigned has carefully reviewed the briefs and exhibits submitted by the
parties, as well as Magistrate Judge Wilkerson’s Report and Recommendation. Following

On May 4, 2017, after Defendant Williams filed his motion for summary judgment, Bankston was granted
leave to file an amended complaint (Doc. 64). His amended complaint included additional claims against
Defendants William Christopher and Jeffery Dennison; however, Bankston’s claims against Defendant
Williams remained the same (see Docs. 64, 65).

1

Page 2 of 3

this review, the undersigned fully agrees with the findings, analysis, and conclusions of
Magistrate Judge Wilkerson and adopts the Report and Recommendation in its entirety.
Bankston testified that he submitted grievances to his counselor on May 16, 2015,
and June 17, 2015, that complained about Defendant Williams’s handling of his requests for
religious services. According to Bankston, he never received a response to either grievance.
Magistrate Judge Wilkerson found Bankston’s testimony credible, and that credibility
determination is entitled to deference. See Pavey v. Conley, 663 F.3d 899, 904 (7th Cir. 2011).
Because Bankston took the steps required of him to informally resolve his grievance, but his
counselor failed to provide a written response, the grievance process was rendered
unavailable. Brengettcy v. Horton, 423 F.3d 674, 682 (7th Cir. 2005) (citing Lewis v.
Washington, 300 F.3d 829, 833 (7th Cir. 2002)). Therefore, Bankston is deemed to have
exhausted his administrative remedies. Lewis, 300 F.3d at 833.
CONCLUSION
The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Wilkerson’s Report and Recommendation
(Doc. 83) and DENIES the motion for summary judgment on the issue of exhaustion filed
by Defendant Michael Williams (Doc. 49).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: August 2, 2017
____________________________
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
United States District Judge

Page 3 of 3