Hood, Sr. v. Lamb et al

Filing 52

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: For the reasons set forth in the attached Memorandum and Order, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendations (Doc. 39 ) over Plaintiff's objection (Doc. 41 ). Summary judgment shall be GRA NTED in favor of Defendants Bach and Ochs. At the conclusion of the case, judgment shall be entered in favor of Defendants Bach and Ochs with prejudice and against Plaintiff. The case shall proceed only as to Defendant Shaner. Signed by Chief Judge Michael J. Reagan on 3/15/2019. (rah)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
CURTIS R. HOOD, SR.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
LT. BACH,
LT. OCHS,
C/O SHANER,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 17-cv-0955-MJR-MAB

MEMORANDUM & ORDER
REAGAN, Chief Judge:
I.

Introduction
Now before the Court is Magistrate Judge Stephen Williams’ Report and

Recommendation (R&R) on Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment as to Exhaustion
of Administrative Remedies (Docs. 27, 39). The underlying suit is a civil rights complaint
by inmate Curtis R. Hood against three individuals at Lawrence Correctional Center
(“Lawrence”) concerning their failure to protect him from an attack by his cellmate (Doc.
1). Magistrate Judge Williams held two evidentiary hearings on the matter, and after
reviewing the evidence he recommended granting summary judgment for two
defendants, and denying as to one (Doc. 39). The parties had 14 days to file objections to
the R&R—Plaintiff filed an objection (Doc. 41).

The matter is now ripe for the

undersigned’s review.
1|Page

II.

Facts
The fact set forth in the Report and Recommendation need not be recited here

because Plaintiff makes no substantive response to those facts (Doc. 39). Plaintiff filed a
one-page document titled “Plaintiff’s Brief Objections to Defendants Summary Judgment
Motion” but it does not contain any new substantive information, or any argument that
Magistrate Judge Williams’ recommendation on summary judgment is erroneous (Doc.
41). The Defendants did not file objections to the R&R.
III.

Applicable Law
Timely objections having been filed, the Court undertakes de novo review of the

portions to the Report to which Plaintiff specifically objected. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED.
R. CIV. P. 72(b); SDIL-LR 73.1(b). The undersigned can accept, reject, or modify
Magistrate Judge Williams’ recommendations, receive further evidence, or recommit the
matter with instructions. Id. As the review of the motion for preliminary injunction is de
novo, the Court conducts an “independent review of the evidence and arguments without
giving any presumptive weight to the magistrate judge’s conclusion,” and “is free, and
encouraged, to consider all of the available information about the case when making this
independent decision.” Mendez v. Republic Bank, 725 F.3d 651, 661 (7th Cir. 2013).
As an inmate, Plaintiff’s lawsuit is governed by the PLRA, which requires a
prisoner to exhaust his administrative remedies before filing suit. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e. In
Illinois, the grievance process requires a prisoner to speak with his counselor, file a

2|Page

written grievance, and then appeal that grievance through the institutional and state
levels. 20 ILL. ADMIN. CODE §§ 504.810–850. Though the Seventh Circuit requires strict
adherence to the PLRA’s exhaustion requirement, Dole v. Chandler, 438 F.3d 804, 809 (7th
Cir. 2006), the PLRA’s plain language is clear: an inmate must exhaust only those
administrative remedies that are available to him, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Administrative
remedies become “unavailable” when prison officials fail to respond to a properly filed
inmate grievance, Lewis v. Washington, 300 F.3d 829, 833 (7th Cir. 2002), or, when prison
employees thwart a prisoner from exhausting, Dole, 438 F.3d at 809.
In Pavey v. Conley (Pavey I), the Seventh Circuit set forth the procedures for
tackling the exhaustion issue. The first step is for the judge to conduct “a hearing on
exhaustion and [permit] whatever discovery relating to exhaustion he deems
appropriate.” Pavey I, 544 F.3d 739, 742 (7th Cir. 2008). Upon conducting the hearing, a
court may credit the testimony of one witness over another. See Pavey v. Conley (Pavey
II), 663 F.3d 899, 904 (7th Cir. 2011) (affirming the factual findings of a magistrate judge,
whose R&R included factual findings that plaintiff was not credible). Thus, unlike
other summary judgment motions, the very purpose of Pavey I is to allow a judge to
resolve swearing contests between litigants on the limited issue of exhaustion of
administrative remedies. See Pavey I, 544 F.3d at 741 (“Juries decide cases, not issues of
judicial traffic control.”). A magistrate judge’s credibility determinations are afforded
great deference. Pavey II, 663 F.3d at 904; see also Goffman v. Gross, 59 F.3d 668, 671 (7th

3|Page

Cir. 1995) (“[D]e novo determination is not the same as a de novo hearing. The district
court is not required to conduct another hearing to review the magistrate judge’s
findings or credibility determinations.”) (emphasis added).
IV.

Analysis
Here, Magistrate Judge Williams thoroughly reviewed the summary judgment

filings by the parties, and conducted an evidentiary hearing prior to preparing his R&R.
The Court finds no apparent flaw in the R&R. As Magistrate Judge Williams may
appropriately do, he made a credibility finding about Plaintiff’s contradicting assertion
that his grievance named all three individuals or that it only named defendant Shaner.
Plaintiff’s live testimony was that the grievance only named Shaner. There is no reason
in the record to disbelieve this finding. Accordingly, the undersigned accepts Magistrate
Judge Williams’ credibility finding and ultimate recommendation about the case. Taking
Magistrate Judge Williams’ R&R, the undersigned concludes that administrative
remedies were taken as far as possible with regard to defendant Shaner, thus the case
may proceed against him. As to the other two defendants—Ochs and Bach—the case will
be dismissed with prejudice.
V.

Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, the Court ADOPTS the Report and

Recommendations (Doc. 39) over Plaintiff’s objection (Doc. 41). Summary judgment shall
be GRANTED in favor of Defendants Bach and Ochs. At the conclusion of the case,

4|Page

judgment shall be entered in favor of Defendants Bach and Ochs with prejudice and
against Plaintiff. The case shall proceed only as to Defendant Shaner.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 15, 2019

s/ Michael J. Reagan
Michael J. Reagan
Chief Judge
United States District Court

5|Page