Croom v Unknown Party

Filing 27

ORDER denying 11 Motion for Preliminary Injunction and adopting 26 Report and Recommendations. See Order for details.Signed by Judge David R. Herndon on 10/24/2017. (klh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
CHRISTOPHER CROOM,
Plaintiff,
v.
JACQUELINE LASHBROOK,
RODELY and JOHN BALDWIN,
Defendants.

No. 17-cv-0633-DRH
MEMORANDUM and ORDER

HERNDON, District Judge:
On June 9, 2017, plaintiff Christopher Croom brought this pro se action for
deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 at the Menard
Correctional Center (Doc. 1). On June 30, 2017, the Court screened Croom’s
amended complaint (Doc. 10) and construed it as a claim against defendants
Counselor Rodely and Jacqueline Lashbrook on an Eighth Amendment claim of
deliberate indifference as defendants failed to protect Croom from his enemy,
Marlon Brown, by failing to respond to his emergency grievance (Doc. 13). In
addition to filing the amend complaint, Croom filed the motion for preliminary
injunction (Doc. 11).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(B), Magistrate Judge Daly submitted a
Report and Recommendation (Athe Report@) on October 3, 2017 (Doc. 26). The
Report recommends that the Court deny Croom’s motion for preliminary
Page 1 of 2

injunction. Magistrate Judge Daly held an evidentiary hearing on the motion on
August 8, 2017

The Report found that Croom has not established irreparable

harm. Specifically, the Report found: “To date, the contact between Plaintiff and
Marlon Brown has been minimal. … Plaintiff has not established that he is likely to
succeed on the merits because he has not established a substantial risk of serious
harm.”

(Doc. 26, pg. 4).

The Report was sent to the parties with a notice

informing them of their right to appeal by way of filing Aobjections@ 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).
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report (Doc. 26). The Court DENIES
Croom’s motion for preliminary injunction (Doc. 11) for the reasons given in the
Report and Recommendation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Digitally signed by
Judge David R. Herndon
Date: 2017.10.24
13:52:42 -05'00'
United States District Judge

Page 2 of 2