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)

Download PDF
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

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?