Hotchkiss v. David et al

Filing 65

ORDER ADOPTING 62 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. The Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant Alfonso David, M.D., (Doc. 44 ) is DENIED. The Motion to Amend Scheduling Order filed by Dr. David (Doc. 64 ) is GRANTED. The previously imposed stay on discovery is LIFTED. Judge Beatty is DIRECTED to enter an amended scheduling order that extends the deadlines in this case by 90 days. Signed by Chief Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel on 8/13/2019. (mlp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
JAMES HOTCHKISS,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 3:16-CV-752-NJR-MAB

v.
ALFONSO DAVID, M.D.,
Defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ROSENSTENGEL, Chief Judge:
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate
Judge Mark A. Beatty, which recommends the undersigned deny the Motion for
Summary Judgment on the issue of exhaustion of administrative remedies filed by
Defendant Alfonso David, M.D. (Doc. 62).
In this lawsuit, filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiff James Hotchkiss alleges
Defendant Dr. David was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs including
issues with balance, as well as chronic, severe pain in his left leg and hip (Doc. 1). These
medical problems allegedly are related to Hotchkiss’s artificial left knee cap, a steel rod
in his leg, and the fact that his left leg is shorter than his right leg (Id.).
On preliminary review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, now-retired District Judge
Michael Reagan found Hotchkiss’s complaint was frivolous and failed to state a claim
(Doc. 7). Judge Reagan therefore dismissed the case (Doc. 7). Hotchkiss appealed, and the
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal of Hotchkiss’s claim against Dr.
David. Hotchkiss v. David, 713 F. App’x 501, 506 (7th Cir. 2017).

Page 1 of 3

On September 18, 2018, Dr. David filed a motion for summary judgment arguing
that Hotchkiss did not exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing this lawsuit
(Doc. 44). Hotchkiss filed several documents in response to Dr. David’s motion (Docs. 48,
49, 52), but Dr. David did not file a reply brief.
On July 25, 2019, Judge Beatty entered the Report and Recommendation currently
before the Court (Doc. 62). Judge Beatty recommends denying Dr. David’s motion for
summary judgment because Dr. David failed to refute Hotchkiss’s evidence that he
submitted grievances to which he received no response. Accordingly, Judge Beatty
considered it undisputed that prison officials failed to respond to four grievances,
rendering the administrative grievance process unavailable to Hotchkiss. As a result,
Hotchkiss is deemed to have exhausted his administrative remedies. No objections were
filed to the Report and Recommendation.
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); SDILLR 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). But, where neither timely nor specific
objections to the Report and Recommendation are made, this Court should only 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 de novo review is not required here, the Court has reviewed the evidence
and Judge Beatty’s Report and Recommendation for clear error. Following this review,

Page 2 of 3

the Court agrees with his findings, analysis, and conclusions. Accordingly, the Court
ADOPTS Judge Beatty’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 62) and DENIES Dr.
David’s Motion for Summary Judgment on the issue of exhaustion of administrative
remedies (Doc. 44).
Furthermore, the Motion to Amend Scheduling Order filed by Dr. David (Doc. 64)
is GRANTED. The previously imposed stay on discovery is LIFTED. Judge Beatty is
DIRECTED to enter an amended scheduling order that extends the deadlines in this case
by 90 days.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: August 13, 2019
____________________________
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
Chief U.S. District Judge

Page 3 of 3