Owens v. Lamb et al
Filing
107
ORDER. Plaintiff's appeal of Magistrate Judge Daly's September 23, 2019 Order (Doc. 101 ) is DENIED; Plaintiff's response to the motion for summary judgment (Doc. 103 ) is STRICKEN; the Motion to Stay Judgment on the Report and Recom mendation (Doc. 102 ) is DENIED as moot; and Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to File Objections (Doc. 97 ) is GRANTED. Plaintiff's objections are due within 14 days of this Order. There will be no further extension of that deadline absent extraordinary circumstances. Signed by Judge Staci M. Yandle on 8/25/2020. (ksp)
Case 3:17-cv-00667-SMY Document 107 Filed 08/25/20 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #795
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
JAMES OWENS, #K83253,
Plaintiff,
vs.
WARDEN LAMB, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 3:17-cv-00667-SMY
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
YANDLE, District Judge:
This case is now before the Court for consideration of Plaintiff’s appeal of Magistrate
Judge Reona J. Daly’s September 23, 2019 Order (Doc. 101) and other related matters. Plaintiff
James Owens, an inmate in the Illinois Department of Corrections, filed this action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged deprivations of his constitutional rights. He is proceeding on an Eighth
Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claim against Warden Lamb and
Lieutenant Leif McCarthy.
Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing McCarthy was not deliberately
indifferent to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs and that he is entitled to qualified immunity on
Plaintiff’s claim. 1 (Doc. 82). After two extensions of time were granted, Plaintiff’s response to
the motion was due on September 16, 2019 (see Docs. 87, 90). He failed to file a response. On
September 19, 2019, Magistrate Judge Reona J. Daley issued a Report and Recommendation,
recommending the motion be granted and judgment be entered in favor of Defendants. (Doc. 91).
Subsequently, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Change of Address (Doc. 92) and a third Motion
1
Warden Lamb is only sued in an official capacity for any potential injunctive relief.
Page 1 of 3
Case 3:17-cv-00667-SMY Document 107 Filed 08/25/20 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #796
for Extension of Time requesting additional time to file a response to the motion for summary
judgment (Doc. 93). Judge Daly denied the motion for extension and reminded Plaintiff that he
had 14 days from the date of the Report and Recommendation to file objections. (Doc. 94).
Plaintiff then filed a Supplement to the [Third] Motion for Extension of Time seeking
additional time to file a response to the motion for summary judgment (Doc. 95), which was denied
(Doc. 96). Judge Daly again reminded Plaintiff of his deadline to file objections to the Report and
Recommendation and advised him to file a timely motion for an extension if he needed additional
time to file his objections. (Doc. 96). Plaintiff then filed a motion for extension of time to file
objections (Doc. 97) and a motion for reconsideration requesting that the Court withdraw the
Report and Recommendation and grant his motion for extension to file a response (Doc. 98). Judge
Daly denied the motion for reconsideration. (Doc. 100).
Plaintiff subsequently filed an appeal of Judge Daly’s ruling denying his third motion for
extension (Doc. 94). He also filed a Motion to Stay Judgment on the Report and Recommendation
(Doc. 102) and an untimely response to the motion for summary judgment (Doc. 103).
Discussion
Plaintiff was granted two extensions of time to respond to the motion for summary
judgment. While he complains that a prison transfer on September 12, 2019 interfered with his
ability to meet the September 16, 2019 deadline, the summary judgment motion was filed nearly
three months before the transfer took place. His third motion seeking an extension was received
after the Report and Recommendation was issued.
A district judge should not disturb a magistrate judge’s ruling on a non-dispositive matter
unless it is contrary to law or clearly erroneous. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(a);
SDIL-LR 73.1(a). The Court finds that Judge Daly’s decision to deny Plaintiff’s third motion for
Page 2 of 3
Case 3:17-cv-00667-SMY Document 107 Filed 08/25/20 Page 3 of 3 Page ID #797
extension of time was not contrary to law or clearly erroneous. Accordingly, his appeal will be
denied. Because Plaintiff’s untimely response to the motion for summary judgment was filed
without leave of court and contrary to the Court’s rulings, it will be stricken. The Court will,
however, grant Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Objections to the Report and
Recommendation.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s appeal of Magistrate Judge Daly’s September 23, 2019 Order
(Doc. 101) is DENIED; Plaintiff’s response to the motion for summary judgment (Doc. 103) is
STRICKEN; the Motion to Stay Judgment on the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 102) is
DENIED as moot; and Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Objections (Doc. 97) is
GRANTED. Plaintiff’s objections are due within 14 days of this Order. There will be no further
extension of that deadline absent extraordinary circumstances.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: August 25, 2020
s/ Staci M. Yandle
STACI M. YANDLE
United States District Judge
Page 3 of 3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?