Gonzalez v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc. et al

Filing 35

ORDER ADOPTING 34 Report and Recommendation and DENYING 29 Motion for Summary Judgment for Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies filed by Wexford Health Sources, Inc. Signed by Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel on 5/25/2018. (bak)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
GILBERTO GONZALEZ,
Plaintiff,
vs.
WEXFORD HEATH SOURCES, INC.,
KIMBERLY BUTLER, JOHNDOES 1-4,
JOHN BALDWIN, and JACQUELINE
LASHBROOK,
Defendants.

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

Case No. 17-CV-287-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. 34) regarding the motion for
summary judgment filed by Defendant Wexford Health Sources, Inc. (“Wexford”)
(Doc. 29). 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. 34). No objection to the Report and Recommendation was filed.
Plaintiff Gilberto Gonzalez (“Gonzalez”), an inmate of the Illinois Department of
Corrections (“IDOC”) currently incarcerated at Menard 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 conditions of confinement claim against
Wexford, Butler, John Doe 1, and Baldwin for housing
Gonzalez in an unsanitary/unsafe cell and for placing two
inmates in a cell designed for only one, with limited exercise
opportunities outside of the cell.

Count 2 –

Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against
Wexford, Butler, Baldwin, John Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe,
John Doe 4 and Baldwin, for failure to adequately treat
and/or delayed treatment of Gonzalez’s injured thumb.

(Doc. 10, p. 21).
Defendant Wexford filed a motion for summary judgment in January 2018,
arguing that Gonzalez failed to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing suit
(Docs. 29, 30). Gonzalez filed a response in opposition to the motion (Doc. 32). On April
18, 2018, Magistrate Judge Wilkerson issued the Report and Recommendation currently
before the Court, in which he concluded that Gonzalez fully exhausted his
administrative remedies regarding Count 1. As to Count 2, Magistrate Judge Wilkerson
found that the grievance process was not available to Gonzalez and therefore
Defendants had not met their burden of proving failure to exhaust administrative
remedies (Doc. 35).
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
error. Johnson v. Zema Systems Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999). The Court may

Page 2 of 3

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. 34) is ADOPTED in its
entirety. The motion for summary judgment filed by Wexford (Doc. 29) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: May 25, 2018
____________________________
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
United States District Judge

Page 3 of 3