Braboy v. Illinois Department of Corrections et al

Filing 33

ORDER adopting 29 Report and Recommendations and denying 5 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Judge David R. Herndon on 4/5/2018. (klh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
DAMIEN BRABOY,
Plaintiff,
v.
ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, JACQUELINE A.
LASHBROOK, CALEB E. ZANG, A.
MASTERSON, SGT. SNELL, K. ELLIS
and C/O GRAVES,
Defendants.

No. 17-cv-922-DRH
MEMORANDUM and ORDER

HERNDON, District Judge:
Plaintiff, currently incarcerated at Pontiac Correctional Center, brought this
pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging his constitutional
rights were violated while he was incarcerated at Menard Correctional Center (Doc.
1). Plaintiff claims defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical
issues, subjected him to unconstitutional conditions of confinement, violated his
due process rights, interfered with his access to courts, and retaliated against him
in violation of the Eighth, Fourteenth, and First Amendments.

He also seeks

injunctive relief which was construed as a motion for preliminary injunction (Doc.
5). The Court screened plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and
the following claims survived review:
Page 1 of 3

Count 3: Lashbrook failed to intervene when Plaintiff was subjected to
retailiation, cruel and unusual punishment, unlawful detention,
harassment, and deliberate indifference to his medical needs by
individual defendants;
Count 6: Lashbrook and Graves showed deliberate indifference to
Plaintiff’s serious medical need involving the injury he sustained to his
eyes on march 28, 2017, in violation of the Eighth Amendment;
Count 7: Masterson, Snell, Ellis, and Zang retaliated against Plaintiff
for and/or exercised prior restraint on Plaintiff to prevent Plaintiff from
filing grievances and otherwise complaining about his treatment, in
violation of the First Amendment;
Count 9: Illinois state law claim against Masterson, Snell, Graves, Ellis
Zang, and Lashbrook for intentionally inflicting emotional distress
upon Plaintiff; and
Count 12: Illinois state law claims against the Illinois Department of
Corrections for indemnification.
(Doc. 8).
On January 12, 2018, defendants filed their opposition to the motion for
preliminary injunction (Doc. 21). On March 16, 2018, Magistrate Judge Reona J.
Daly,

pursuant

to

28

U.S.C.

§

636(b)(1)(B),

Recommendation (“the Report”) (Doc. 29).

submitted

a

Report

and

The Report recommends that the

Court deny the motion for preliminary injunction.

The Report found that

plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief is moot as plaintiff has been transferred from
Menard Correctional Center to Pontiac Correctional Center and that despite the
transfer plaintiff has not met his burden in showing that he is entitled to a
preliminary injunction (Doc. 29 pg. 4).
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 of the Report. To
date, none of the parties has filed objections.
Page 2 of 3

The period in which to file

objections has expired. Therefore, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), this Court
need not conduct de novo review. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-52 (1985).
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report (Doc. 29). The Court DENIES
Plaintiff’s order for show cause for preliminary injunction construed as a motion
for preliminary (Doc. 5) for the reasons given in the Report and Recommendation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Judge Herndon
2018.04.05
09:45:24 -05'00'
United States District Judge

Page 3 of 3