Hope v. Baldwin et al

Filing 63

ORDER ADOPTING 62 Report and Recommendations re 41 Motion for Summary Judgment on the Issue of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies filed by Defendants Tammy Welty and Kim Woods, and joined by Defendant Steve Duncan. Summary judgment is GRANTE D as to Defendant Steve Duncan in his individual capacity. Summary judgment is DENIED as to Defendants Tammy Welty and Kim Woods. Defendant Steve Duncan, in his individual capacity, is DISMISSED without prejudice. Signed by Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel on 3/6/2017. (mlp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
GREGORY HOPE,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
TAMMY WELTY, KIM WOODS, STEVE )
DUNCAN, and UNKNOWN PARTY,
)
)
Defendants.
)

Case No. 3:16-CV-00327-NJR-DGW

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ROSENSTENGEL, District Judge:
Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson (Doc. 62), which recommends that the Motion for
Summary Judgment on the Issue of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies (Doc. 41) be
denied as to Defendants Tammy Welty and Kim Woods and granted as to Defendant
Steve Duncan. The Report and Recommendation was entered on January 30, 2017. No
objections were filed.
On March 25, 2016, Plaintiff Gregory Hope, an inmate at Lawrence Correctional
Center, filed a Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that Defendants were
deliberately indifferent to his health needs (Doc. 1). Specifically, Hope claims that on
August 4, 2015, around 12:45 p.m., he experienced severe chest pain and numbness in his
right arm and legs. He activated his cell’s panic button and yelled for medical attention,
but it was two hours before anyone responded. When Hope saw Defendant Nurse Welty
at 5 p.m. for his scheduled insulin shot, she refused to examine him for his heart attack
Page 1 of 4

symptoms or to refer him to a doctor, and instead sent him back to his cell. Later that
evening, Hope was still experiencing heart attack symptoms when Defendant Nurse
Woods was making medication rounds. Hope informed Nurse Woods of his symptoms
and sought medical assistance from her. Nurse Woods told Hope she would place him
on the doctor’s call line, but offered no further help. Hope never saw the doctor. A week
later, on August 11, 2015, Hope suffered a major heart attack. He again had to wait an
hour and 45 minutes before any help arrived. He was then admitted to a hospital and
underwent surgery to alleviate an arterial blockage.
After an initial review of the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, Hope was
permitted to proceed on one count of deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth
Amendment against Defendants Nurse Welty, Nurse Woods, Steve Duncan, and
Unknown Parties. On August 4, 2016, Defendants Nurse Welty and Nurse Woods filed a
motion for summary judgment arguing that Hope failed to exhaust his administrative
remedies pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. §1997e, et seq., prior to
commencing this lawsuit (Doc. 41). Defendant Duncan joined the motion (Docs. 45, 48).
Defendants argue that, other than a September 14, 2015 grievance, none of the many
grievances Hope filed were properly exhausted. Furthermore, Defendants argue, the
September 14, 2015 grievance failed to include sufficient detail to exhaust Plaintiff’s
claims against them. Thus, they claim, they are entitled to summary judgment.
Magistrate Judge Wilkerson held a hearing pursuant to Pavey v. Conley, 544 F.3d
739 (7th Cir. 2008), on November 21, 2016, and subsequently issued the Report and
Recommendation currently before the Court. The Report and Recommendation

Page 2 of 4

accurately states the nature of the evidence presented on the issue of exhaustion, as well
as the applicable law and the requirements of the administrative process.
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 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). 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).
While a de novo review is not required here, the Court has considered the evidence
and fully agrees with the findings, analysis, and conclusions of Magistrate Judge
Wilkerson. The Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Wilkerson that Hope’s August 4,
2015 and September 11, 2015 grievances sufficiently identify Defendant Nurse Welty and
Nurse Woods, respectively, and their actions giving rise to Hope’s claims. The Court
further agrees that Hope was thwarted in attempt to exhaust his grievances at the
institutional level when the grievance officer failed to or refused to respond to his
grievances. At the Pavey hearing, Hope testified that because there are no instructions
regarding how to address and resolve grievances when no response is received, he
submitted the grievances directed to the ARB. Magistrate Judge Wilkerson assessed the

Page 3 of 4

credibility of Hope’s statements and found them to be true. It is not the Court’s role to
second-guess Magistrate Judge Wilkerson’s credibility determinations. See Pavey v.
Conley, 663 F.3d 899, 904 (7th Cir. 2011); Goffman v. Gross, 59 F.3d 668, 671 (7th Cir. 1995)
(“The district court is not required to conduct another hearing to review the magistrate
judge’s findings or credibility determinations”).
The Court also agrees that the grievances are insufficient to exhaust Hope’s
claims against Defendant Duncan. None of Hope’s grievances refer to Defendant
Duncan by name or mention his rejection of Hope’s grievances as non-emergencies.
Accordingly, summary judgment shall be granted to Defendant Duncan with regard to
the claims against in him in individual capacity.
For these reasons, the Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Wilkerson’s Report and
Recommendation (Doc. 62), GRANTS summary judgment as to Defendant Steve
Duncan in his individual capacity, and DENIES summary judgment as to Defendants
Tammy Welty and Kim Woods. Defendant Steve Duncan, in his individual capacity, is
DISMISSED without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 6, 2017
____________________________
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
United States District Judge

Page 4 of 4