Moore v. Hill et al

Filing 67

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 43 Motion for Summary Judgment: As is fully explained in the attached Order, the udnersigned District Judge ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Williams' R&R in its entirety and GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendants' summary judgment motion. See Order for details. Signed by Chief Judge Michael J. Reagan on 9/5/2018. (soh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
CORTEZ L. MOORE,
vs.

Plaintiff,

SUSAN HILL, and
KIMBERLY BUTLER,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 16-cv-0261-MJR-SCW

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
REAGAN, Chief Judge:
This is a prisoner civil rights lawsuit brought under 42 U.S.C. 1983 by Cortez L.
Moore, who is incarcerated at Menard Correctional Center. On threshold review of
under 28 U.S.C. 1915A, the undersigned found that Moore’s complaint stated
cognizable claims for violation of this rights under the Eighth Amendment to the
United States Constitution, stemming from allegations that he was confined in a dark,
cold cell for over three weeks. Those claims proceed against two Defendants – Susan
Hill and Kimberly Butler.
On October 31, 2017, Defendants Hill and Butler moved for summary judgment,
arguing that Moore had failed to establish that the conditions of his confinement
satisfied the objective and subjective standards needed to support an Eighth
Amendment violation. Moore opposed the motion. Now before the Court is a Report
and Recommendation submitted by the Honorable Stephen C. Williams, United States
Magistrate Judge (Doc. 65, R&R). The R&R recommends that the undersigned grant in

1

part and deny in part Defendants’ summary judgment motion.
The R&R plainly stated that any objection must be filed by September 4, 2018.
That date passed, with neither an objection nor a motion for extension of the objection
deadline filed by any party. Because no objection was lodged against the R&R, the
undersigned need not conduct de novo review of the R&R. 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(C) (A
judge shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified
proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.); Thomas v. Arn,
474 U.S. 140 (1985); Johnson v. Zema Systems Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 741 (7th Cir. 1999);
Video Views Inc., v. Studio 21, Ltd., 797 F.2d 538 (7th Cir. 1986).
The Court ADOPTS in its entirety Judge Williams' R&R (Doc. 64) and GRANTS
IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendants’ summary judgment motion (Doc. 43).
As fully described in the R&R, the motion is granted as to Plaintiff’s cell light claim but
denied as to Plaintiff’s cell temperature claim. At the close of the case, the Clerk of
Court shall enter judgment in favor of Defendants Hill and Butler and against Plaintiff
Moore on the cell light claim.

In the wake of this Order, what remains herein is

Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment cell temperature claim against Defendants Hill and
Butler.
The final pretrial conference remains set before Magistrate Judge Williams on
October 10, 2018. Jury trial remains set before the undersigned on October 29, 2018 but
cannot go to trial that day, as the undersigned has a must-go criminal re-trial set that
day in United States v. Abdon, a case that resulted in a mistrial the first time it was
tried.

2

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED September 5, 2018.
s/ Michael J. Reagan
Michael J. Reagan
United States District Judge

3