Mason v. Spiller et al

Filing 50

ORDER adopting 48 Report and Recommendations. Plaintiff's 17 motion to transfer and 18 motion for preliminary injunction are DENIED. Signed by Judge David R. Herndon on 6/1/2018. (ceh)

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

MICKEY DEANGELO MASON,
Plaintiff,
v.

No. 17-cv-867-DRH-RJD

WILLIAM SPILLER, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM and ORDER

HERNDON, District Judge:
This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation
(“the Report”) issued by Magistrate Judge Reona J. Daly on May 7, 2018 (doc.
48). The Report recommends that the Court deny plaintiff’s motions for transfer
(doc. 17) and for preliminary injunction (doc. 18). Both motions request that
plaintiff be transferred from Menard Correctional Center (“Menard”) due to
harassment and retaliatory behaviors by IDOC staff.

The Court ADOPTS the

Report (doc. 48) in its entirety and DENIES the motions for transfer and for
preliminary injunction.
Concisely, plaintiff Mason brought this pro se action for deprivation of his
constitutional rights while incarcerated at Menard, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

1

The Court screened Mason’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and
plaintiff is proceeding on the following claim:
Count 1 – Eight Amendment deliberate indifference claim against the
Orange Crush Officers and Spiller for using excessive force against Plaintiff
on April 1, 2016.
In the two motions addressed by the Report, plaintiff complains of actions
by IDOC staff including alleged mail tampering, denial of the grievance process,
and denial of access to the law library, among others. However, at the hearing
held regarding the preliminary injunction motion, plaintiff reneged on all
purported issues and would like to be transferred simply due to defendant being
employed at Menard.
After the hearing, Magistrate Daly issued her Report pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B), recommending the Court deny the pending motions as plaintiff
failed to show and prove the necessary elements needed to grant a preliminary
injunction. See doc. 48 at 3. Additionally, there is no relationship between the
relief requested and the claims pending in the case. Id. The Report was sent to
the parties with a notice informing them of their right to appeal by way of filing
“objections” within 14 days of service the Report. To date, none of the parties
filed objections. The period in which to file objections has expired. Therefore,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), this Court need not conduct a de novo review.

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-52 (1985).

2

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report (doc. 48) and DENIES the
pending motion to transfer (doc. 17) and motion for preliminary injunction (doc.
18).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Judge Herndon
2018.06.01
11:30:40 -05'00'
United States District Judge

3