Pegues v. Coe et al

Filing 62

ORDER ADOPTING Report and Recommendations (Doc. 48 ) and DENYING Plaintiff's Motions for Preliminary Injunction (Docs. 32 , 35 , 37 ). Signed by Judge Staci M. Yandle on 12/16/2016. (tfs)

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

ADAM PEGUES,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JOHN COE, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 16-CV-239-SMY-RJD

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Frazier’s Report and
Recommendation (“Report” Doc. 48) recommending that Plaintiff’s motions for preliminary
injunctive relief (Docs. 32, 35, 37) be denied. Plaintiff filed an objection to the Report (Doc.
50). For the following reasons, the Report is ADOPTED in its entirety.
Plaintiff is an inmate with the Illinois Department of Corrections (“IDOC”) and is housed
at Lawrence Correctional Center (“Lawrence”).

Upon threshold review, the Court found

Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claims and claim
that his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and Rehabilitation Act
(“RA”) are being violated, to be colorable. The Court adopts the portion of the Report that sets
forth the background of this case (Doc. 48 p. 1-4) and will not repeat an overview here.
A court may accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations of the magistrate judge in a report and recommendation. Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b)(3). The Court must review de novo the portions of the report to which objections are
made. Plaintiff has objected to the report in its entirety, asserting that he suffers from serious
health conditions and that he continues to be denied proper treatment (Doc. 50 p. 3).

Page 1 of 3

To succeed on a motion for preliminary injunction, Plaintiff must show “that he is likely
to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary
relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor and that an injunction is in the public interest.”
D.U. v. Rhoades, 825 F.3d 331, 333 (7th Cir. 2016). Judge Frazier’s Report correctly points out
the Prison Litigation Reform Act requires that preliminary injunctive relief with respect to prison
conditions be narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the harm and be the
least intrusive means necessary. 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2).
The Court has reviewed the arguments, evidence and Judge Frazier’s analysis and finds
that the Report correctly recommends that the preliminary injunction be denied as Plaintiff is not
likely to succeed on the merits of his claim. The evidence, namely Plaintiff’s medical records,
shows that he has received persistent and attentive medical care including a wide array of tests,
exams and physical therapy from January 2014 to May 2016 (Doc. 47-1 p. 1; Doc. 47-4 p. 23).
The medical staff at Lawrence ultimately concluded that Plaintiff was malingering and/or
exaggerating his symptoms (Doc. 47-4 p. 23).

Plaintiff’s objection does not address the

substance of the Report, but rather reiterates the conditions and symptoms which he contends he
suffers. Plaintiff then states in conclusory fashion that Defendants have violated his rights under
the ADA and RA. These statements alone fail to meet the burden of establishing irreparable
harm and a likelihood of success on the merits.
For the foregoing reasons, Magistrate Judge Frazier’s Report and Recommendation (Doc.
48) is adopted in its entirety. Plaintiff’s Motions for Preliminary Injunction (Docs. 32, 35, 37)
are DENIED.

Page 2 of 3

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: December 16, 2016
s/ Staci M. Yandle
STACI M. YANDLE
United States District Judge

Page 3 of 3