Townes v. David et al

Filing 66

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: The Court ADOPTS in its entirety Magistrate Judge Williams's Report & Recommendation (Doc. 65 ) and GRANTS the motions for summary judgment filed by Defendants David and Pittayathikhan (Do c. 41 ) and Defendants Smoot and Swalls (Doc. 44 ). All claims as to those Defendants are DISMISSED with prejudice. As Defendant Dennison did not move for summary judgment, the claims against him remain pending. Signed by Chief Judge Michael J. Reagan on 8/8/2018. (rah)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
HENRY L. TOWNES,
Plaintiff,
vs.
ALFONSO DAVID, TAMMIE
PITTAYATHIKHAN, KAREN SMOOT,
JEFFERY DENNISON, and MATTHEW
SWALLS
Defendants.

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

Case No. 17-cv-651-MJR-SCW

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT & RECOMMENDATION AND
GRANTING MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
REAGAN, Chief Judge:
Henry L. Townes filed suit, as limited by the Court’s threshold order (Doc. 7),
against Defendants David, Pittayathikhan, Smoot, and Dennison alleging that they were
deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. On August 9, 2017, Defendant
Matthew Swalls, in his official capacity as Warden of Vienna Correctional Center, was
added to the suit for purposes of carrying out injunctive relief. (Doc. 27). On January 8,
2018, Defendants David, Pittayathikhan, Smoot, and Swalls moved for summary
judgment, arguing that Townes failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as to the
claims against them. (Docs. 41, 44). Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Williams held an
evidentiary hearing on the motions and, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) submitted a
detailed Report & Recommendation (Doc. 65) to the undersigned District Judge on July
6, 2018. The report recommends granting the motions for summary judgment and

1

dismissing Townes’ claims against the defendants with prejudice due to his dishonest
conduct in modifying a piece of evidence presented at the hearing.
The Report and Recommendation clearly states that any objections to Judge
Williams’ recommendation were due by July 27, 2018. No objections were filed by that
deadline, nor did either party move for additional time to file objections. Accordingly,
this Court need not conduct a de novo review. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(“A judge of the
court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified
findings or recommendations to which objection is made.”); Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b)(3)(“The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate
judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to. The district judge may accept,
reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return
the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions”).
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS in its entirety Magistrate Judge Williams’s
Report & Recommendation (Doc. 65) and GRANTS the motions for summary judgment
filed by Defendants David and Pittayathikhan (Doc. 41) and Defendants Smoot and
Swalls (Doc. 44). All claims as to those Defendants are DISMISSED with prejudice. As
Defendant Dennison did not move for summary judgment, the claims against him
remain pending.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: August 8, 2018

s/ Michael J. Reagan
MICHAEL J. REAGAN
Chief Judge
United States District Court
2