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)

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