Brewer v. Santos et al

Filing 59

ORDER ADOPTING 53 Report and Recommendations, GRANTING 37 Motion for Summary Judgment, and DENYING 54 Plaintiff's Objections. Defendants Dr. Venerio Santos and Dr. Arnel Garcia are DISMISSED with prejudice from this action. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case on the Court's docket. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark A. Beatty on 3/25/20. (klh2)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
MICHAEL BREWER,
Plaintiff,
vs.
VENERIO SANTOS and
ARNEL GARCIA,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 3:17-CV-222-MAB

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
BEATTY, Magistrate Judge:
Currently pending in this matter is the motion for summary judgment filed by
Defendants Dr. Venerio Santos and Dr. Arnel Garcia (Doc. 37), as well as, the Report and
Recommendation issued by the undersigned on October 18, 2019, recommending that the
motion for summary judgment be granted (Doc. 53). Plaintiff Michael Brewer filed an
objection to the Report and Recommendation, to which Defendants filed a response
(Docs. 54, 55). Before District Judge J. Phil Gilbert entered an order adopting or rejecting
the Report and Recommendation, the final consent from Defendants was filed and Judge
Gilbert referred the case to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) for all further
proceedings (Docs. 8, 44, 45).
Now that the undersigned is the presiding judge in this matter, the Report and
Recommendation dated October 19, 2019 (Doc. 53) is adopted as the undersigned’s final
order on Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. 37), and the motion for
Page 1 of 3

summary judgment is granted. The Court construes and considers Plaintiff’s objections
as a motion to reconsider.
To recap, Plaintiff was proceeding on an Eighth Amendment deliberate
indifference claim against Defendants Dr. Venerio Santos and Dr. Arnel Garcia for failing
to provide adequate treatment for his injured pinky finger (Docs. 1, 9, 53). In granting
summary judgment, the Court declined to address whether Plaintiff’s finger injury
constituted a serious medical need and instead concluded that the evidence when viewed
in a light most favorable to Plaintiff did not establish a genuine issue of fact as to whether
Defendants acted with deliberate indifference (Doc. 53). Plaintiff objects to the conclusion
that neither Dr. Santos nor Dr. Garcia were deliberately indifferent when both of them
testified that the proper treatment for a sprain is immobilization/splinting, but neither of
them prescribed that treatment, and Dr. Santos also did not prescribe Plaintiff any pain
medication (Doc. 54).
The Court notes that Plaintiff’s objections are a recapitulation of the arguments he
made in his response in opposition to the motion for summary judgment that were
already considered and rejected by the undersigned (Doc. 42). See Ahmed v. Ashcroft, 388
F.3d 247, 249 (7th Cir. 2004) (“A motion that merely republishes the reasons that had
failed to convince the [court] in the first place gives the [court] no reason to change its
mind.”). The Court has nevertheless carefully reviewed Plaintiff’s objections, the findings
of fact and conclusions of law set forth in the Report and Recommendation, and the
relevant evidence (namely, the depositions of Dr. Santos and Dr. Garcia), and given fresh
consideration to whether Dr. Santos and Dr. Garcia were deliberately indifferent. The
Page 2 of 3

Court remains convinced that its analysis was sound, and it was correct in granting
summary judgment to Defendants. Consequently, Plaintiff’s objections, which have been
construed as a motion to reconsider, are DENIED.
CONCLUSION
The Report and Recommendation dated October 18, 2019 (Doc. 53) is ADOPTED
as the undersigned’s final Order on Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The
motion for summary judgment (Doc. 37) is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s Objections (Doc. 54),
which have been construed as a motion to reconsider, are DENIED. Defendants Dr.
Venerio Santos and Dr. Arnel Garcia are DISMISSED with prejudice from this action.
The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case on the
Court’s docket.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 25, 2020
s/ Mark A. Beatty
MARK A. BEATTY
United States Magistrate Judge

Page 3 of 3