Bradley v. Dennison et al

Filing 109

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: For the reasons set forth in the attached Order, The Court ADOPTS in its entirety Judge Williams' R&R (Doc. 96 ) and DENIES Defendant David's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 49 ). Signed by Chief Judge Michael J. Reagan on 2/4/2019. (rah)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
DEANDRE BRADLEY,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JEFFERY DENNISON,
KAREN SMOOT,
A. DAVID,
JOHN BALDWIN,
and JONATHAN BOTARF,
Defendants.

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

Case No. 17-cv-0862-MJR-GCS

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
REAGAN, Chief Judge:
This is a prisoner civil rights lawsuit filed by Deandre Bradley who currently is
incarcerated at Menard Correctional Center but complains of events occurring while he
was confined at Shawnee Correctional Center. Bradley presents claims of deliberate
indifference to his medical needs, unconstitutional conditions of confinement, and
violation of the Rehabilitation Act and Americans with Disabilities Act. The operative
complaint is Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, filed on December 6, 2018. Four
Defendants answered that complaint on December 17, 2019 – Defendants Dennison,
Smoot, Baldwin and Botarf. A fifth Defendant answered two days later – Defendant
David (whose answer reveals his full name is Dr. Alfonso David).1
Now before the Court is Defendant David’s April 9, 2018 motion for summary

The Clerk’s Office shall correct the docket sheet to replace “A. David”
with Dr. Alfonso David.
1

1|Page

judgment (Doc. 49) based on Plaintiff’s alleged failure to exhaust administrative remedies
before filing this suit. Plaintiff timely opposed the motion, and the Magistrate Judge then
assigned to the case (the Honorable Stephen C. Williams) held a hearing on the motion
on December 4, 2018 and issued a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 96, R&R). The R&R
recommends that the undersigned District Judge deny Defendant David’s summary
judgment motion and find that Plaintiff exhausted his administrative remedies against
David “as to [Plaintiff’s] foot and leg injury” (id., p. 19).
Objections to the R&R were due December 27, 2018. Defendant David secured an
extension of the objection deadline through February 1, 2019 (see Doc. 104).
That deadline passed three days ago, with neither an objection nor another motion for
extension of the deadline filed. Because no objection was lodged against the R&R, the
undersigned need not conduct de novo review of the R&R. 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(C) (A
judge shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified
proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.); Thomas v. Arn,
474 U.S. 140 (1985); Johnson v. Zema Systems Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 741 (7th Cir. 1999);
Video Views Inc., v. Studio 21, Ltd., 797 F.2d 538 (7th Cir. 1986).
The Court ADOPTS in its entirety Judge Williams' R&R (Doc. 96) and DENIES
Defendant David’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 49).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED February 4, 2019.

s/ Michael J. Reagan
Michael J. Reagan
United States District Judge
2|Page