Lyles v. Wexford Health Sources Inc. et al

Filing 76

ORDER ADOPTING 73 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION and DENYING 46 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Wexford Health Sources Inc. Signed by Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel on 1/11/2018. (bak)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS WILLIAM LYLES, Plaintiff, vs. WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC., DR. TROST, ARTHUR FUNK, GAIL WALLS, DR. LOUIS SCHICKER, KIMBERLY BUTLER, and TANYA SMITH, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 16-CV-838-NJR-DGW MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ROSENSTENGEL, District Judge: This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Donald. G. Wilkerson (Doc. 73), which recommends that this Court deny the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant Wexford Health Sources (Doc. 46). The Report and Recommendation was entered on November 14, 2017. No objections were filed. Plaintiff William Lyles filed this action asserting that Defendants violated his constitutional rights while he was incarcerated at Menard Correctional Center. Plaintiff proceeds on the following count: Count One: Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to medical needs claim against Defendants for denying Lyles adequate medical care for his shoulder injury and related pain. Specifically, as to Wexford, Lyles argues that Wexford has a policy and/or practice of failing to provide competent medical professionals and failing to provide Page 1 of 3 appropriate medical care because of cost. Wexford filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 46) arguing that Lyles failed to exhaust his administrative remedies before bringing suit. As required by Pavey v. Conley, 544 F.3d 739 (7th Cir. 2008), Magistrate Judge Wilkerson held an evidentiary hearing on Wexford’s motion on November 13, 2017. Following the Pavey hearing, Magistrate Judge Wilkerson issued the Report and Recommendation currently before the Court (Doc. 73). Objections to the Report and Recommendation were due on or before December 1, 2017. No objections were filed. Where timely objections are filed, the 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 291, 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, modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court has carefully reviewed Magistrate Judge Wilkerson’s Report and Recommendation. Magistrate Judge Wilkerson thoroughly discussed the evidence and the Court fully agrees with his findings, analysis, and conclusions with respect to the issue of exhaustion. Magistrate Judge Wilkerson determined that Lyles was credible in Page 2 of 3 his assertion that he submitted the December 21, 2015 and January 17, 2016 grievances but received no response to those grievances, and that credibility determination is entitled to deference. See Pavey v. Conley, 663 F.3d 899, 904 (7th Cir. 2011). The Court also agrees that Lyles properly exhausted his administrative remedies as to Wexford with respect to his policy and practice claim. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Wilkerson’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 73) in its entirety and DENIES the Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 46) filed by Wexford. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: January 11, 2018 ____________________________ NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL United States District Judge Page 3 of 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?