Barrows v. Goldman et al

Filing 43

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: The Court ADOPTS in its entirety Judge Williams' R&R (Doc. 40 ) and DENIES Defendants' summary judgment motions (Docs. 27 and 29 ). Signed by Chief Judge Michael J. Reagan on 12/4/2018. (rah)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
HENRY BARROWS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
DR. LISA GOLDMAN,
JACOB WEATHERFORD,
MRS. COWAN,
REVA ENGELAGE,
and LAKIESHA CAMBY, 1
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 17-cv-1388-MJR-SCW

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
REAGAN, Chief Judge:
This is a prisoner civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, filed by Henry Barrows,
when he was incarcerated at Menard Correctional Center (he now is housed at Pontiac
Correctional Center) and presenting claims of deliberate indifference, in violation of the
Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Five Defendants are named herein.
Four Defendants (Camby, Cowan, Engelage, and Goldman) answered on April 13, 2018
and are referred to as the “IDOC Defendants.” The fifth Defendant (Weatherford)
answered on May 29, 2018.

Both answers raised affirmative defenses, including the

alleged failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

Subsequent pleadings (e.g., Docs. 11, 28) have identified Mrs. Cowan
as Amanda Cowan and corrected Lakiesha Camby to “Lakesha Hamby.”
The Clerk’s Office shall correct the docket sheet to reflect these updated
names, and the parties shall use the corrected names in all future filings
herein.
1

1|Page

The IDOC Defendants moved for summary judgment based on lack of exhaustion
on July 20, 2018 (Docs. 27-28). Defendant Weatherford moved for summary judgment
based on lack of exhaustion on July 23, 2018 (Docs. 29-30). Plaintiff Barrows timely
responded to the motions (Doc. 32). The Magistrate Judge assigned to the case (the
Honorable Stephen C. Williams) held a hearing on the motions, heard testimony, received
documentary evidence, and took the motions under advisement.
Now before the Court is a Report and Recommendation submitted by Judge
Williams (Doc. 40, R&R). The thorough and detailed 15-page R&R recommends that the
undersigned deny both summary judgment motions. The R&R plainly stated that any
objection must be filed by December 3, 2018. That date passed, with neither an objection
nor a motion for extension of the objection deadline filed. Because no objection was
lodged against the R&R, the undersigned need not conduct de novo review of the R&R.
28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(C) (A judge shall make a de novo determination of those portions
of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is
made.); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Johnson v. Zema Systems Corp., 170 F.3d 734,
741 (7th Cir. 1999); Video Views Inc., v. Studio 21, Ltd., 797 F.2d 538 (7th Cir. 1986).
The Court ADOPTS in its entirety Judge Williams' R&R (Doc. 40) and DENIES
Defendants’ summary judgment motions (Docs. 27 and 29).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED December 4, 2018.

s/ Michael J. Reagan
Michael J. Reagan
United States District Judge
2|Page