Walton v. Scott et al

Filing 53

ORDER ADOPTING Report and Recommendation (Doc. 51 ): Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 46 ). Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Angel Rector and Michael D. Scott are DISMISSED with prejudice and the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge Staci M. Yandle on 9/26/2019. (mah)

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

ROBERT WALTON,
Plaintiff,
vs.
MICHAEL SCOTT and
ANGEL RECTOR,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 17-CV-664-SMY-RJD

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
YANDLE, District Judge:
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation ("Report") of United
States Magistrate Judge Reona J. Daly (Doc. 51) recommending the granting of the Motion for
Summary Judgment filed by Defendants Angela Rector and Michael Scott (Doc. 46). Plaintiff
filed a timely objection (Doc. 52).

For the following reasons, Judge Daly’s Report is

ADOPTED.
In his pleading, Plaintiff does not assert any specific objections to Judge Daly's Report.
Rather, he asserts that he did not respond to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment because
he never received a copy of the Motion. Plaintiff then discusses an incident involving care he
received for a heart attack – an incident unrelated to his current lawsuit.
When no specific objections to a Report and Recommendation are made, the Court need
not conduct a de novo review of the Report. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Instead,
the Court reviews the Report and Recommendation for clear error. Johnson v. Zema Systems
Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999). The Court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or

Page 1 of 2

in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Although Plaintiff did not file a response to Defendants' Motion, Judge Daly still
analyzed whether Defendants were in fact entitled to summary judgment based on the facts
presented as required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(e). She thoroughly discussed
and supported her conclusion that Defendants were not deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff's
medical needs because his inguinal hernia was regularly monitored and treated. The Court finds
no clear error in Judge Daly’s findings, analysis or conclusion, and adopts her Report and
Recommendation in its entirety.
Accordingly, Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 46) is GRANTED and
Plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED with prejudice. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter
judgment accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: September 26, 2019

STACI M. YANDLE
United States District Judge

Page 2 of 2