Dennis v. Chronic et al

Filing 47

ORDER denying 26 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; adopting 42 Report and Recommendations. See Order for details. Signed by Judge David R. Herndon on 12/7/2017. (klh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
LUTHER DENNIS,
Plaintiff,
v.
C/O CHRONIC, WARDEN RAINS
and IDOOC
Defendants.

No. 17-cv-435-DRH
MEMORANDUM and ORDER

HERNDON, District Judge:
Plaintiff,

currently

incarcerated

at

Robinson

Correctional

Center

(“Robinson”), brought this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(Doc. 1). Dennis, who uses a wheelchair, claims that he was injured when he was
forcibly lifted out of the chair to be searched. He seeks injunctive relief in order to
prevent a similar occurrence. The Court screened plaintiff’s complaint pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and the following claims survived review:
Count 1: Eighth Amendment claim against Chronic, for directing an inmate to use
excessive force to lift plaintiff from his wheelchair; and
Count 2: Claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act against the IDOC and
Warden Rains, for allowing untrained prison staff and inmates to physically
mishandle plaintiff, placing him at risk for injury. (Doc. 6).
Magistrate Judge Wilkerson held an evidentiary hearing on Dennis’ order for
Page 1 of 3

show cause for preliminary injunction construed as a motion for preliminary
injunction on November 15, 2017.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B),

Magistrate Judge Wilkerson submitted a Report and Recommendation (“the
Report”) on November 17, 2017 (Doc. 42).

The Report recommends that the

Court deny the motion (Doc. 26). The Report found that plaintiff has not met his
burden in showing that he is entitled to a preliminary injunction. Specifically, the
Report found:
In his motion, Plaintiff asks the Court to order Defendants to
adequately train ADA attendants and other staff prior to assisting him
for fear he may sustain further injury; however, Plaintiff has not been
assigned an ADA attendant and indicated he has not been assisted by
any untrained inmates at the behest of the prison staff since the
incident at issue in this lawsuit occurred. Accordingly, the Court
finds that Plaintiff is not at risk of suffering from an imminent,
irreparable harm. See Graham v. Medical Mut. of Ohio, 130 F.3d
293, 296 (7th Cir. 1997) (‘Irreparable harm is harm which cannot be
repaired, retrieved, put down again, atoned for The injury must be of
a particular nature, so that compensation in money cannot atone for
it.’”) (quotation marks, internal editing marks, and citation omitted).
Plaintiff’s fear that he may again suffer an injury is, at most, a
generalized fear of potential future harm insufficient to entitle him to
extraordinary relief. Further, there is a process available to address
the issues he now complains of that provides him an adequate remedy
at law.
(Doc. 42, p. 4)
The Report was sent to the parties with a notice informing them of their right
to appeal by way of filing “objections” within 14 days of service of the Report. To
date, none of the parties has filed objections.

The period in which to file

objections has expired. Therefore, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), this Court
Page 2 of 3

need not conduct de novo review.

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-52 (1985).

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report (Doc. 42). The Court DENIES
Dennis’ order for show cause for preliminary injunction construed as a motion for
preliminary (Doc. 26) for the reasons given in the Report and Recommendation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Judge Herndon
2017.12.07
06:24:45 -06'00'
United States District Judge

Page 3 of 3