Mitchell v. Scott et al

Filing 32

ORDER ADOPTING 30 Report and Recommendations and DENYING 7 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel on 8/2/2017. (klh2)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
ALBERT C. MITCHELL,
Plaintiff,
vs.
MICHAEL SCOTT,
CHRISTINE BROWN,
JACQUELINE LASHBROOK, and
KAREN JAIMET,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 17-CV-245-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. 30), which recommends denying the
motion for injunctive relief filed Plaintiff Albert Mitchell on March 13, 2017 (Doc. 7). For
the reasons explained below, the Court adopts Magistrate Judge Wilkerson’s Report
and Recommendation and denies the motion for injunctive relief.
Plaintiff Albert Mitchell was previously incarcerated in the Illinois Department
of Corrections. He filed this pro se lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on March 8, 2017,
alleging he was denied adequate medical treatment for an infection of his genital area
while he was incarcerated at Pinckneyville Correctional Center (Doc. 1). Following a
threshold review of the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, Mitchell was
permitted to proceed on an Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against
Dr. Michael Scott, Health Care Administrator Christine Brown, and former

Page 1 of 3

Pinckneyville Warden Jacqueline Lashbrook (Doc. 6). The acting Pinckneyville Warden,
Karen Jaimet, is a defendant in this action only in her official capacity for purposes of
carrying out any injunctive relief that may be ordered (Doc. 6).
In his complaint, Mitchell included a request for an immediate injunction “to
cause Defendants to screen Mitchell for S.T.D.’s and/or other potential medical
condition [sic] related or unrelated to the cause of this complaint” (Doc. 1, p. 9), which
was construed as a motion for preliminary injunction (Doc. 6). In response to Mitchell’s
request for preliminary injunctive relief, Defendant Scott asserted that Mitchell’s
request was moot given that Mitchell was released from custody (Doc. 26). Indeed, the
Court’s records indicate that as of May 9, 2017, Mitchell had a private address and was
no longer incarcerated (Doc. 22).
Magistrate Judge Wilkerson issued the Report and Recommendation that is
currently before the Court on July 7, 2017 (Doc. 30). He concluded that Mitchell’s claims
for injunctive relief were mooted by virtue of his release from custody (Doc. 30).
Objections to the Report and Recommendation were due on or before July 24, 2017. See
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(2); SDIL-LR 73.1(b). No objections were filed.
Where neither timely nor specific objections to the Report and Recommendation are
made, however, 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 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).

Page 2 of 3

Having reviewed Mitchell’s motion and the Report and Recommendation, the
undersigned fully agrees with the analysis and conclusions of Magistrate Judge
Wilkerson. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 30) is ADOPTED in its entirety, and
the motion for injunctive relief (Doc. 7) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: August 2, 2017

NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
United States District Judge

Page 3 of 3