Hutcherson v. Talbot et al

Filing 61

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, The Court ADOPTS the Report in its entirety (Doc. 51 ) and DENIES Hutcherson's motion for a preliminary injunction. (Doc. 6 ). Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 10/11/2017. (jdh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
LONNIE HUTCHERSON,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 3:17-cv-00253-JPG-RJD

TALBOT, et. al,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
J. PHIL GILBERT, DISTRICT JUDGE
This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“Report”) of
Magistrate Judge Reona J Daly. (Doc. 51.) The Report recommends that the Court deny plaintiff
Lonnie Hutcherson’s motion for a preliminary injunction. (Doc. 6.) Hutcherson has objected to
the Report. (Doc. 56).
I.

LEGAL STANDARDS
The Court may accept, reject, or modify—in whole or in part—the findings or

recommendations of the magistrate judge in a report and recommendation. FED. R. CIV. P.
72(b)(3). The Court must review de novo the portions of the report to which objections are made.
Id. “If no objection or only partial objection is made, the district court judge reviews those
unobjected portions for clear error.” Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir.
1999).
II.

THE REPORT
The Report explained that “in order to obtain a preliminary injunction, the moving party

must show that: (1) they are reasonably likely to succeed on the merits; (2) no adequate remedy
at law exists; (3) they will suffer irreparable harm which, absent injunctive relief, outweighs the
1

irreparable harm the respondent will suffer if the injunction is granted; and (4) the injunction will
not harm the public interest.” Joelner v. Village of Washington Park, Illinois, 378 F.3d 613, 619
(7th Cir. 2004). First, Magistrate Judge Daly found that Hutcherson has not demonstrated he will
suffer irreparable harm absent an injunction because, according to medical professionals,
Hutcherson’s pain stems from gastroesophageal reflux disease rather than the hernia that
Hutcherson seeks surgery for. Second, Magistrate Judge Daly held that Hutcherson has not
demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits because—contrary to Hutcherson’s claims
that the defendants were deliberately indifferent towards his ailment—the record shows that
Hutcherson received “significant medical attention” following his complaints.
III.

OBJECTIONS
In Hutcherson’s objection to the Report (Doc. 56), he challenges the credibility of the

defendant physicians and claims he should be sent to an outside hospital, where the doctors
would have “a much better understanding as to what was physically wrong with his stomach”.
Hutcherson also claims that people not trained as physicians—other inmates—could see that
Hutcherson was in pain, and therefore the defendants’ assessment as to whether Hutcherson
needs hernia surgery must be incorrect. Besides this issue of credibility, Hutcherson has not
objected to any specific findings in Magistrate Judge Daly’s Report.
IV.

ANALYSIS
The Court has carefully reviewed the documents in the file related to the credibility of the

defendants de novo and has determined that, for the reasons stated in the Report, the Report’s
conclusion is correct. Hutcherson has pointed to no defect in the defendants’ credibility as
medical professionals other than a general claim that their diagnosis of him is incorrect—with no

2

medical evidence to support that claim. Additionally, the Court has reviewed the unobjected
portions of Magistrate Judge Daly’s report and finds no clear error.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court ADOPTS the Report in its entirety (Doc. 51) and
DENIES Hutcherson’s motion for a preliminary injunction. (Doc. 6.)
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: OCTOBER 11, 2017
s/ J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
DISTRICT JUDGE

3