Jordan v. Weber

Filing 25

ORDER adopting 24 Report and Recommendations and denying 16 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Judge David R. Herndon on 4/25/2018. (klh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

PIERRE JORDAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
C/O WEBER,
Defendant.

No. 17-cv-0624-DRH
MEMORANDUM and ORDER

HERNDON, District Judge:
Plaintiff, currently incarcerated at Lawrence Correctional Center, brought
this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that C/O Weber
violated his Eighth Amendment rights by verbally and sexually harassing him and
retaliating against him (Doc. 2).1 On August 10, 2017, the Court screened plaintiff’s
complaint as to Count 4 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and re-characterized it as:

1 Plaintiff’s claims against Weber were severed from his original claims in Jordan v.
Lamb¸17-0207-SMY.

Page 1 of 3

Count 1: Weber violated Plaintiff’s rights under the First and/or Eighth
Amendments by verbally and sexually harassing Plaintiff, making
intimidating remarks to him, stealing from him, and making
retaliatory threats toward him after Plaintiff filed grievances to
complain about the office, culminating in Plaintiff’s suicide attempt on
July 11, 2016.
(Doc. 6).
Thereafter, plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction on November
22, 2017 (Doc. 16).

Weber filed his opposition to the motion for preliminary

injunction (Doc. 20). On April 4, 2018, Magistrate Judge Reona J. Daly, pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), submitted a Report and Recommendation (“the
Report”) (Doc. 24). The Report recommends that the Court deny the motion for
preliminary injunction. The Report found:
“Notably, there is no apparent relationship between the facts and
allegations contained in Plaintiff’s motion and those in the Complaint.
Indeed, the only defendant in this case is Correctional Officer Weber,
who is not mentioned in Plaintiff’s motion. As the main purpose of a
preliminary injunction is ‘to preserve the relative positions of the
parties until a trial on the merits can be held,’ University of Texas v.
Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395 (1981), it is not clear how the relief
Plaintiff seeks would accomplish such a purpose.”
(Doc. 24, ps. 3-4).
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
need not conduct de novo review.

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-52 (1985).
Page 2 of 3

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report (Doc. 24). The Court DENIES
Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction (Doc. 16) for the reasons given in the
Report and Recommendation.

Judge Herndon
2018.04.25
11:10:13 -05'00'

IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Judge

Page 3 of 3