James v. Baldwin et al

Filing 80

ORDER ADOPTING 76 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. The Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants Rodney Barker and Jeffrey Gardiner (Doc. 66 ) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiff Ned James's claims against Defendant Bark er for failure to protect in Count 2 and the state law assault and battery claim in Count 3 are DISMISSED with prejudice. Judge Beatty is DIRECTED to recruit counsel for James for purposes of trial. Once counsel is appointed, the parties are ORDERED to confer regarding potential trial dates. Signed by Chief Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel on 6/24/2019. (mlp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
NED JAMES, 3RD,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 3:17-CV-623-NJR-MAB

RODNEY BARKER and
JEFFREY GARDINER,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ROSENSTENGEL, Chief Judge:
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate
Judge Mark A. Beatty, which recommends the undersigned grant in part and deny in part
the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants Rodney Barker and Jeffery
Gardiner (Doc. 66). 1
Plaintiff Ned James filed this lawsuit on June 13, 2017, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
alleging his constitutional rights were violated while he was incarcerated at Menard
Correctional Center (Doc. 1). Specifically, and as relevant here, James alleged that on July
8, 2016, Defendant Gardiner pulled down James’s shorts and stuck his fingers in James’s
anus several times while Defendant Barker was present (Id.). James claims he was
screaming during the incident, but no one came to help. He also requested medical

1

The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to correct C/O Barker’s name to Rodney Barker on the docket.

Page 1 of 4

attention, but he was not allowed to see a nurse for several days (Id.). After threshold
review of his Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), James was permitted to proceed on
the following counts:
Count 2:

Eighth Amendment claims against Gardiner for sexually
assaulting Plaintiff on July 8, 2016 (excessive force), against
Barker for failing to intervene to stop the assault (failure to
protect), and against Gardiner and Barker for refusing
Plaintiff’s request for medical attention following the assault
(deliberate indifference);

Count 3:

Illinois state law claim for assault and battery against
Gardiner and Barker based on the sexual assault incident of
July 8, 2016.

On March 20, 2019, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that
James’s version of events surrounding the alleged sexual assault by Defendant Gardiner
is so unbelievable that dismissal is warranted. Furthermore, James failed to inform his
counselor or medical personnel of the alleged incident and only referenced it briefly in a
grievance filed four days after the incident. With regard to Defendant Barker, Defendants
argue there is no evidence he knew of the impending assault such that he could have
intervened and prevented it. For the same reasons, they assert, James’s state law assault
and battery claims must fail. As to James’s deliberate indifference claim, Defendants
argue first that James’s bleeding from his anus was not an objectively serious medical
condition. Second, Defendants argue there is no evidence they had actual knowledge of
a substantial risk of serious harm and disregarded it. Finally, Defendants contend they
are entitled to qualified immunity.

Page 2 of 4

On May 30, 2019, Judge Beatty entered the Report and Recommendation currently
before the Court (Doc. 76). Judge Beatty recommends the undersigned grant summary
judgment as to Defendant Barker on the failure to protect claim in Count 2 and the state
law assault and battery claim in Count 3, but deny the remainder of the motion.
Objections to the Report and Recommendation were due 14 days after service of the
Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. §636(b); SDIL-LR 73.1(b). No objections were
filed.
Where timely objections are filed, this Court must undertake a de novo review of
the Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B), (C); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b); SDILLR 73.1(b); Harper v. City of Chicago Heights, 824 F. Supp. 786, 788 (N.D. Ill. 1993); see also
Govas v. Chalmers, 965 F.2d 298, 301 (7th Cir. 1992). Where neither timely nor specific
objections to the Report and Recommendation are made, however, this Court need not
conduct de novo review of the Report and Recommendation. 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).
While de novo review is not required here, the Court has carefully reviewed the
evidence and Judge Beatty’s Report and Recommendation for clear error. Following this
review, the Court agrees with his findings, analysis, and conclusions.

Page 3 of 4

Having found no clear error, the Court ADOPTS Judge Beatty’s Report and
Recommendation (Doc. 76). The Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants
Rodney Barker and Jeffrey Gardiner (Doc. 66) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
Plaintiff Ned James’s claims against Defendant Barker for failure to protect in Count 2
and the state law assault and battery claim in Count 3 are DISMISSED with prejudice.
This case shall now proceed to trial on the following claims, as separated into the
following counts:
Count 1:

Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against Gardiner
for sexually assaulting Plaintiff on July 8, 2016;

Count 2:

Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s
serious medical needs claim against Gardiner and Barker for
refusing Plaintiff’s request for medical attention following the
assault;

Count 3:

Illinois state law claim for assault and battery against
Gardiner based on the sexual assault incident of July 8, 2016.

Judge Beatty is DIRECTED to recruit counsel for James for purposes of trial. Once
counsel is appointed, the parties are ORDERED to confer regarding potential trial dates.
The Court will set a status conference by separate order to set firm Trial and Final Pretrial
Conference dates. Once the trial date is set, a continuance will be granted only in the
rarest of circumstances.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: June 24, 2019
____________________________
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
Chief U.S. District Judge
Page 4 of 4