Noble v. McAllister et al

Filing 30

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 18 ). The motions for Preliminary Injunction filed by Sunni Noble (Docs. 14 and 15 ) are DENIED. Signed by Judge Staci M. Yandle on 7/11/2016. (mah)

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

SUNNI NOBLE,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
vs.
LIEUTENANT MCALLISTER, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 16-CV-316-SMY-PMF

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
YANDLE, District Judge:
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge Philip M. Frazier (Doc. 18) recommending the denial of Plaintiff’s motions for
preliminary injunction (Docs. 14, 15). No objections to the Report and Recommendation have
been filed.

See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2); SDIL-LR 73.1(b).

For the

following reasons, the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Frazier is ADOPTED
in its entirety.
Plaintiff Sunni Noble filed suit presenting Eighth Amendment civil rights claims against
three correctional officers, stemming from separate and distinct incidents occurring on May 11,
2014 and June 4, 2014 (Doc. 1). In his subsequent motions for preliminary injunctions, Plaintiff
alleges that he has been deprived of his medication while at Lawrenceville Correctional Center
by physician John Coe (Doc. 14) and that the mailroom staff continues to open his legal mail
(Doc. 15).
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

1

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).
Judge Frazier thoroughly discussed and supported his conclusion that Plaintiff has not
demonstrated an entitlement to injunctive relief. The Court fully agrees with Judge Frazier’s
findings, analysis and conclusions and adopts his Report and Recommendation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: July 11, 2016
s/ Staci M. Yandle
STACI M. YANDLE
United States District Judge

2