Maiden v. Harris

Filing 25

ORDER ADOPTING 24 Report and Recommendation and DENYING 17 Motion for Summary Judgment on the issue of exhaustion. Signed by Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel on 12/26/2018. (klh2)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
JUAN MAIDEN,
Plaintiff,
vs.
WILLIAM P. HARRIS,
Defendants

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 17-CV-874-NJR-DGW

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ROSENSTENGEL, District Judge:
Plaintiff Juan Maiden, an inmate in the Illinois Department of Corrections, alleges
that on September 24, 2016, while he was working as a cook in the kitchen at
Pinckneyville Correctional Center, he stepped on a broken floor grate and his foot went
through the grate, causing him to fall into a hot kettle and burn his arm. Maiden further
alleges that Defendant William Harris, the Dietary Manager at Pinckneyville, knew about
the broken floor grate for over a year but refused to have it repaired or replaced. Maiden
is proceeding in this lawsuit on an Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim
against Defendant Harris.
Defendant Harris filed a motion for summary judgment in June 2018, arguing that
Maiden failed to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing suit as required by
the Prison Litigation Reform Act (Doc. 17). Magistrate Judge Wilkerson issued a Report
and Recommendation on November 28, 2018, which is currently before the Court,
recommending that Defendant Harris’s motion for summary judgment be denied

Page 1 of 2

(Doc. 24). Harris did not file an objection to the Report and Recommendation by the
deadline on December 17, 2018 (see Doc. 24).
Because no party has filed an objection, the undersigned need not undertake de
novo review. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) (“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.”) (emphasis added). See also Thomas v. Arn,
474 U.S. 140 (1985); Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 741 (7th Cir. 1999); Video
Views, Inc. v. Studio 21, Ltd., 797 F.2d 538 (7th Cir. 1986).
The undersigned accordingly ADOPTS in its entirety Magistrate Judge
Wilkerson’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 24). Defendant William P. Harris’s
motion for summary judgment on the issue of exhaustion (Doc. 17) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: December 26, 2018
____________________________
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
United States District Judge

Page 2 of 2