Johnson v. Wexford Health Care Services, Inc. et al

Filing 25

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS; denying as moot 4 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Robert N. Johnson. The Court adopts the 24 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS in its entirety. Signed by Judge David R. Herndon on 4/30/18. (lmp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
ROBERT N. JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
MR. BALDWIN, et al.,
Defendants.

No. 17-cv-1308-DRH-RJD
MEMORANDUM and ORDER

HERNDON, District Judge:
Plaintiff Robert Johnson, brought this pro se action for deprivations of his
constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 while incarcerated at
Pinckneyville Correctional Center. Johnson alleges that he was denied adequate
treatment for his medical condition causing deterioration of his hips, legs, and
back that have not been adequately treated, thus leaving him confined to a
wheelchair. He further alleges that Pinckneyville Correctional failed to comply
with the Americans with Disabilities and Rehabilitation Act.
Along with his complaint, Johnson filed a motion for injunctive relief (Doc.
4), which the Court construed as a motion for preliminary injunction, seeking
relief against the Warden of Pinckneyville that requires him to place Johnson in
administrative segregation, or in the alternative, to transfer him to an IDOC
facility with cells that accommodate wheelchairs. He also requests an order
directing the warden and other staff members to cease and desist from issuing

Page 1 of 3

retaliatory disciplinary reports, and provide medical care for his urgent medical
needs. (Doc. 4).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(B), Magistrate Daly submitted a Report
and Recommendation (Athe Report@) on April 5, 2018 (Doc. 24).

The Report

recommends that the Court deny as moot Johnson’s motion for injunctive relief in
its entirety, in light of Johnson’s transfer from Pinckneyville to his current
institution, Menard Correctional Center. It is well established that when a
prisoner is transferred or released from IDOC custody his claims for injunctive
relief are moot. See Easterling v. Pollard, 528 F.App’x 653, 656 (7th Cir. 2013)
(citing Grayson v. Schuler, 666 F.3d 450, 451 (7th Cir. 2012); Vinning-El v.
Evans, 657 F.3d 591, 592 (7th Cir. 2011)); see also Higgason v. Farley, 83 F.3d
807, 811 (7th Cir. 1996). Said relief is moot unless the prisoner “can demonstrate
that he is likely to be retransferred.” Higgason, 83 F.3d at 811 (citation omitted);
see also Maddox v. Love, 655 F.3d 709, 716 (7th Cir. 2011). Here, the Report
found that there is no evidence that Johnson is likely to be transferred back to
Pinckneyville.
The Report was sent to the parties with a notice informing them of their
right to appeal by way of filing Aobjections@ within 14 days of service of the Report.
To date, none of the parties has 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 de novo review. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-52 (1985).
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report (Doc. 24). The Court DENIES

Page 2 of 3

as moot Johnson’s motion for injunctive relief (Doc. 4) for the reasons given in
the Report and Recommendation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Judge Herndon
2018.04.30
15:24:09 -05'00'
United States District Judge

Page 3 of 3