Walker v. Wexford Medical Provider et al

Filing 66

ORDER ADOPTING 64 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. The Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant Sharon McGlorn (Doc. 51 ) is GRANTED. The Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants Aimee Lang and Gail Walls (Doc. 54 ) also is GRANTED. Plaintiff Andrew Walker's claims are DISMISSED with prejudice, and the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Chief Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel on 6/4/2019. (mlp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
ANDREW WALKER,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 3:17-CV-933-NJR-RJD

NURSE PRACTITIONER MCGLORN,
AIMEE LANG, and GAIL WALLS,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ROSENSTENGEL, Chief Judge:
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of United
States Magistrate Judge Reona J. Daly (Doc. 64), which recommends granting the motions
for summary judgment filed by Defendants Sharon McGlorn, Aimee Lang, and Gail
Walls (Docs. 51, 54). 1
Plaintiff Andrew Walker filed this lawsuit on August 31, 2017, pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging his constitutional rights were violated while he was
incarcerated at Menard Correctional Center (Doc. 1). Specifically, Walker alleges
Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs when they
persisted in a course of treatment known to be ineffective with regards to his

The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to correct Nurse Practitioner McGlorn’s name to Sharon McGlorn and
Amy Lang to Aimee Lang.

1

Page 1 of 3

gastrointestinal symptoms. Walker claims his symptoms were due to the soy diet served
at Menard.
On February 7, 2019, McGlorn filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that
Walker has not shown he suffers from an objectively serious medical condition when he
has never been diagnosed with a soy allergy, and his only complaints are of minor weight
loss, cramping, bloating, and constipation (Doc. 51). Even assuming he did suffer from
an objectively serious condition, McGlorn argues, she did not ignore his complaints and
provided completely appropriate treatment (Id.). Walls and Lang also moved for
summary judgment, arguing there is no evidence that Walker had a serious medical need
or that either Defendant disregarded Walker’s concerns (Doc. 54).
On May 13, 2019, Judge Daly entered the Report and Recommendation currently
before the Court (Doc. 64). Judge Daly recommends the undersigned grant Defendants’
motions, as there is no evidence that Walker suffers from an objectively serious medical
condition or that Defendants acted with deliberate indifference. Objections to the Report
and Recommendation were due May 27, 2019. 28 U.S.C. §636(b); SDIL-LR 73.1(b). No
objections were filed.
Where timely objections are filed, this Court must undertake a de novo review of
the Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B), (C); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b); SDILLR 73.1(b); Harper v. City of Chicago Heights, 824 F. Supp. 786, 788 (N.D. Ill. 1993); see also
Govas v. Chalmers, 965 F.2d 298, 301 (7th Cir. 1992). Where neither timely nor specific
objections to the Report and Recommendation are made, however, this Court need not
conduct a de novo review of the Report and Recommendation. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S.
Page 2 of 3

140 (1985). Instead, the Court should review the Report and Recommendation for clear
error. Johnson v. Zema Systems Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999). The Court may then
“accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by
the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
While a de novo review is not required here, the Court has carefully reviewed the
evidence and Judge Daly’s Report and Recommendation for clear error. Following this
review, the Court fully agrees with her findings, analysis, and conclusions.
Having found no clear error, the Court ADOPTS Judge Daly’s Report and
Recommendation (Doc. 64). The Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant
Sharon McGlorn (Doc. 51) is GRANTED. The Motion for Summary Judgment filed by
Defendants Aimee Lang and Gail Walls (Doc. 54) also is GRANTED. Plaintiff Andrew
Walker’s claims are DISMISSED with prejudice, and the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED
to enter judgment accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: June 4, 2019
____________________________
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
U.S. Chief District Judge

Page 3 of 3