Manskey v. Wiggs et al

Filing 53

ORDER ADOPTING 49 Report and Recommendation and DENYING 30 Motion for Summary Judgment for Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies filed by Defendants. Signed by Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel on 5/25/2018. (bak)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
JASON MANSKEY,
Plaintiff,
vs.
STEPHEN JONES, JEFFREY
STALLINGS, and RICHARD WIGGS,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 16-CV-1368-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. 49) regarding the motion for
summary judgment filed by Defendants Stephen Jones, Jeffrey Stallings, and Richard
Wiggs (Doc. 30). The motion seeks summary judgment on the issue of exhaustion of
administrative remedies. The Report and Recommendation was entered on April 18,
2018, and recommends denying the motion for summary judgment filed by Wexford
(Doc. 49). No objection to the Report and Recommendation was filed.
Plaintiff Jason Manskey (“Manskey”), an inmate of the Illinois Department of
Corrections (“IDOC”) currently incarcerated at Dixon Correctional Center, filed a pro se
lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deprivations of his constitutional rights
(Doc. 1). Following a threshold review of the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A,
Gonzalez was permitted to proceed on the following claims:

Page 1 of 3

Count 1 –

Eighth Amendment claim against C/O Wiggs and C/O
Jones for using excessive force against Manskey on
November 14, 2014.

Count 2 –

Eighth Amendment claim against C/O Wiggs, C/O Jones,
and C/O Stalling for using excessive force against Manskey
on December 28, 2014.

(Doc. 6, p. 4-5).
Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment in October 2017, arguing that
Manskey failed to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing suit (Docs. 30, 31).
Manskey filed a response in opposition to the motion (Doc. 36). In accordance with
Pavey v. Conley, 544 F.3d 739 (7th Cir. 2008), Magistrate Judge Wilkerson held an
evidentiary hearing on the issue of exhaustion in November 2017 (Docs. 40, 47). On
April 18, 2018, Magistrate Judge Wilkerson issued the Report and Recommendation
currently before the Court, in which he concluded that Manskey exhausted his
administrative remedies. Specifically, Magistrate Judge Wilkerson found that, as to the
November 14th incident, the purpose of the PLRA’s exhaustion requirement was met
and thus Manskey is deemed to have exhausted. As to the December 28, 2014 incident,
Magistrate Judge Wilkerson found that the administrative process was rendered
unavailable to Manskey and thus Manskey is deemed to have exhausted.
Objections to the Report and Recommendation were due on or before May 7,
2018. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(2); SDIL-LR 73.1(b). No objection was
filed. Where neither timely nor specific objections to the Report and Recommendation
are made, the Court need not conduct a de novo review. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140
(1985). Instead, the Court should review the Report and Recommendation for clear

Page 2 of 3

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).
The undersigned has reviewed Magistrate Judge Wilkerson’s Report and
Recommendation and finds there is no clear error in his findings of fact or conclusions
of law. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 49) is ADOPTED in its
entirety. The motion for summary judgment filed by Defendants (Doc. 30) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: May 25, 2018
____________________________
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
United States District Judge

Page 3 of 3