Thornton v. Lashbrook et al

Filing 172

ORDER DENYING 131 Motion for TRO; DENYING 131 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; ADOPTING Report and Recommendations re 142 Report and Recommendations. See Order for details. Signed by Judge David R. Herndon on 10/12/2018. (jer)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
CHARLES THORTON,
Plaintiff,
v.

No. 17-cv-761-DRH-RJD

JACQUELINE LASHBROOK, et al.,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM and ORDER
HERNDON, District Judge:
I.
Pending

before

the

Court

Introduction
is

an

August

27,

2018

Report

and

Recommendation (“the Report”) issued by Magistrate Judge Reona J. Daley. (Doc.
142). Judge Daley recommends that the Court deny Plaintiff Thorton’s Motion for
a Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) and Preliminary Injunction. (Doc. 131).
The parties were allowed time to file objections to the Report and on September
6, 2018, Plaintiff Thorton filed an objection. (Doc. 151). Based on the applicable
law, the record and the following, the Court ADOPTS the Report in its entirety.
II.

Background

Plaintiff Thorton brought this pro se action seeking a TRO that has been de
facto converted into a motion for preliminary injunction as the defendant is on
notice of the request and has been given an opportunity to respond. See Doe v.
Page 1 of 5

Village of Crestwood, Illinois, 917 F.2d 1476, 1477 (7th Cir. 1990). Plaintiff is an
inmate in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections at Menard
Correctional Center (‘Menard”). On July 20, 2017, Plaintiff commenced this
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his constitutional
rights. Plaintiff is proceeding on the following counts:
Count 1 -

Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to medical needs
claim against Nurse Walls, Doctor Trost, Lee Gregson, Juanita
House, Reva Engelage, Shelby Dunn, Cassandra Norton,
Martha Oakley, Tara Chadderton, and Warden Lashbrook for
refusing to provide Plaintiff’s prescription medication
(Neurontin) from March 7-29, 2017.

Count 2 -

Wexford Health Sources had an unconstitutional policy or
custom that prevented Plaintiff from receiving his prescription
refill for Neurontin from March 7-29, 2017, in violation of the
Eight Amendment.

Plaintiff now seeks a temporary restraining order/preliminary injunction
compelling the medical staff at Menard to administer his medication in capsule
form. Plaintiff is prescribed Neurontin to treat pain. Previously, Plaintiff would
receive the Neurontin in capsule form. The nurse distributing the medication
would provide Plaintiff a capsule and perform a “mouth check” to ensure the
medication was swallowed. The “mouth check” is a non-invasive visual inspection
in which the offender opens his mouth and lifts his tongue. Following a dispute
with a nurse regarding Plaintiff’s compliance with a mouth check on July 29,
2018, it was ordered by the Medical Director that Plaintiff’s medication be
crushed and given with liquid for 30 days. Plaintiff objects to being provided his
medication in liquid form because it is given in an unsecured cup of “watery
Page 2 of 5

liquid” without a label attached. Plaintiff declines to take the medication in liquid
form because he cannot verify the actual contents of the medication pass. Plaintiff
took one dose of medication in liquid form and believes it was just water and has
refused the liquid at each subsequent medication pass. Plaintiff alleges he is in
extreme pain as a result of not receiving his medication in capsule form.
III.
A.

Applicable Law

Preliminary Injunction
“The purpose of preliminary injunctive relief is to minimize the hardship to

the parties pending the ultimate resolution of the lawsuit.” Platinum Home Mortg.
Corp. v. Platinum Fin. Group, Inc., 149 F.3d 722, 726 (7th Cir.1998). “In order
to obtain a preliminary injunction, the moving party must show that: (1) they are
reasonably likely to succeed on the merits; (2) no adequate remedy at law exists;
(3) they will suffer irreparable harm which, absent injunctive relief, outweighs the
irreparable harm the respondent will suffer if the injunction is granted; and (4)
the injunction will not harm the public interest.” Joelner v. Village of Washington
Park, Illinois, 378 F.3d 613, 619 (7th Cir. 2004).
B.

Review of the Report & Recommendation
The Court's review of the Report is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1),

which provides in part:
A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those
portions
of
the report or
specified
proposed
findings
or recommendations to which objection is made. A judge of the court
may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings
or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The judge may
also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the
Page 3 of 5

magistrate judge with instructions.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) also directs that the Court must only make a de
novo determination of those portions of the report and recommendation to which
specific written objection has been made. Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d
734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999). If no objection or only a partial objection is made, the
Court reviews those unobjected portions for clear error. Id. In addition, failure
to file objections with the district court “waives appellate review of both factual
and legal questions.” Id. Under the clear error standard, the Court can only
overturn a Magistrate Judge's ruling if the Court is left with “the definite and firm
conviction that a mistake has been made.” Weeks v. Samsung Heavy Indus. Co.,
Ltd., 126 F.3d 926, 943 (7th Cir. 1997).
IV.

Analysis

In this case, Plaintiff seeks a preliminary injunction compelling the medical
staff at Menard to administer his medication in capsule form because he objects
to being provided his medication in liquid form because it is give in an unsecured
cup of “watery liquid” without a label attached. Plaintiff declines to take the
medication in liquid form because he cannot verify the actual contents of the
medication pass. Judge Daley correctly found that:
Plaintiff has failed to show that he will suffer irreparable harm absent
injunctive relief. There is no evidence that Plaintiff is currently being
denied his prescription medication. Plaintiff admits that he is being
offered a liquid form of medication and that he is choosing to refuse
the medication because he objects to the form. Plaintiff has offered
no evidence of how receiving a crushed form, rather than capsule
form of his medication, would cause harm.
Page 4 of 5

Interference with medication pass policy could cause irreparable
harm to the institution. In correctional centers there is a risk of
offenders abusing medications by combining doses or other
medications, or selling medications to other offenders. Policies
regarding “mouth checks” and crushed medications are implemented
in order to prevent medication abuse and overdose. Medical staff has
discretion to issue medication as deemed medically appropriate.
(Doc. 142, p. 3-4).
Therefore, after de novo review, the Court finds that Judge Daley was
correct in her denial of Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction. The
Court finds that Plaintiff’s objection merely takes umbrage with current
legal precedent that requires the denial of his motion.
V.

Conclusion

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report in its entirety (Doc. 142) and
DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and a Preliminary
Injunction (Doc. 131).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Judge Herndon
2018.10.12
05:57:08 -05'00'
United States District Judge

Page 5 of 5