Stanton v. Wexford Health Source, Inc. et al

Filing 30

ORDER ADOPTING 29 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 26 MOTION for Summary Judgment on the Issue of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies filed by Christine Brown. The Court adopts the 29 Report in its entirety and grants defendant Brown's 26 motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff's claims against defendant Brown are dismissed without prejudice. This Order closes the case. Signed by Judge David R. Herndon on 10/29/2018. (ceh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

RODNEY STANTON,
Plaintiff,
v.

No. 18-cv-399-DRH-RJD

WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCE, INC.,
et al.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM and ORDER
HERNDON, District Judge:
Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation (“the Report”)
issued by Magistrate Judge Reona J. Daly on October 5, 2018 (doc. 29). The
Report recommends that the District Court grant defendant Brown’s Motion for
Summary Judgment for Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies (doc. 26).
Specifically, defendant Christine Brown, who plaintiff is proceeding on Count 1
against for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need involving plaintiff’s
pacemaker and chest pain associated therewith, filed a summary judgment
motion asserting that plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies prior
to filing this pending lawsuit. Id. Plaintiff did not file a response.
The grievance at issue contained in the records of the Administrative
Review Board (“ARB”) was allegedly submitted on February 3, 2018.

Plaintiff

stated his pacemaker was not properly being maintained and requested he receive

1

appropriate medical care and to be released. However, there is no indication that
the grievance was received by staff at Pickneyville Correctional Center, where
plaintiff is being housed. Instead the grievance was received on July 12, 2018 by
the ARB with a letter claiming that plaintiff submitted the grievance to the
Pickneyville Warden but never received a response.
Under

42

U.S.C.

§

1997(e),

a

prisoner

must

exhaust

available

administrative remedies prior to filing any lawsuit in federal court.

Pozo v.

McCaughtry, 286 F.3d 1022, 1024 (7th Cir. 2002). Based on the facts, Judge
Daly found that defendant is entitled to summary judgment on the issue of
exhaustion, as even if plaintiff properly submitted the February 3, 2018 grievance,
it is impossible for plaintiff to have fully exhausted his administrative remedies
only 11 days later when he filed suit on February 14, 2018.

Doc. 29 at 5.

Further, the letter to the ARB does not serve to exhaust plaintiff’s remedies as
exhaustion is a requirement prior to filing suit. See Perez v. Wisconsion Dep’t of
Corr., 182 F.3d 532, 535 (7th Cir. 1999) (“[T]he district court lacks discretion to
resolve the claim on the merits, even if the prisoner exhaust intra-prison remedies
before judgment.”).
The Court's review of the Report is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C),
which provides in part:
A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those
portions
of
the report or
specified
proposed
findings
or recommendations to which objection is made. A judge of the court
may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings
or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The judge may

2

also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the
magistrate judge with instructions.
Id.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) also directs that the Court must only make a de
novo determination of those portions of the report and recommendation to which
specific written objection has been made. Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d
734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999). If no objection or only a partial objection is made, the
Court reviews those unobjected portions for clear error. Id.

Under the clear

error standard, the Court can only overturn a Magistrate Judge's ruling if the
Court is left with “the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been
made.” Weeks v. Samsung Heavy Indus. Co., Ltd., 126 F.3d 926, 943 (7th Cir.
1997).
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 the Report.
To date, none of the parties 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 a de novo review. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-52 (1985).
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report (doc. 29) in its entirety based
on the analysis conducted by Magistrate Judge Daly and laid out briefly above.
The undersigned is not left with any firm conviction that a mistake has been
made; rather, the magistrate properly analyzed the facts and applied the law.
Thus, defendant Brown’s Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. 26) is GRANTED

3

and plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Brown are DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Judge Herndon
2018.10.29
16:40:30 -05'00'
United States District Judge

4