Eastman v. Doe et al

Filing 27

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 22 MOTION to Dismiss Defendant Warden of Big Muddy River Correctional Center and Memorandum of Law filed by Warden of Big Muddy River Correctional Center. The Court GRANTS 22 Motion to Dismiss and ADOPTS 23 Report and Recommendations in its entirety. Signed by Judge David R. Herndon on 5/24/2018. (lmp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
JEFFREY EASTMAN,
Plaintiff,
v.

No. 18-cv-543-DRH-DGW

JOHN DOE, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM and ORDER
HERNDON, District Judge:
Plaintiff Jeffrey Eastman brought this pro se action for deprivations of his
constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s lawsuit stems
from allegations that prison officials and staff at Big Muddy River Correctional
Center and Centralia Correctional Center were deliberately indifferent to his
serious medical issues in violation of the Eighth Amendment and failed to
accommodate his disabilities (Doc. 1). On March 22, 2018, the Court conducted
its preliminary review of the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and the
matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson (Doc. 11).
Specifically, plaintiff was permitted to proceed on Count 1 of his complaint
against Defendant John Doe in this case. However, this defendant had to be
identified with particularity before service of the Complaint could be made on
Page 1 of 3

him. Count 2 was dismissed without prejudice, and the Court severed Counts
3-5 into separate actions. The Court also directed that the Warden of Big Muddy
River Correctional Center be added as a defendant in his official capacity only,
and he was deemed responsible for responding to discovery aimed at identifying
John Doe.
Thereafter, defendant Daniel Sullivan, Warden of Big Muddy River
Correctional Center, filed a motion to dismiss (Doc. 22). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. '
636(b)(1)(B), Magistrate Wilkerson submitted a Report and Recommendation
(Athe Report@) on May 7, 2018 (Doc. 23). The Report recommends that the Court
grant defendant’s motion to dismiss because plaintiff did not state any claims
against Defendant Sullivan in his individual capacity; Defendant Sullivan
assisted in identifying John Doe as Dr. Dennis Larson; and as plaintiff has no
ending claim for injunctive relief against Sullivan and the John Doe defendant
has been identified, Sullivan should be dismissed from this action.
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. In fact, plaintiff filed a
response to the motion in which he indicates that he is agreeable to the motion to
dismiss (Doc. 25). 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).
Page 2 of 3

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report (Doc. 23).

The Court

GRANTS Defendant Sullivan’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 22) for the reasons given
in the Report and Recommendation. The Clerk is DIRECTED to terminate
Warden Daniel Sullivan from this action and enter judgment at the close of this
case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Judge Herndon
2018.05.24
15:47:21 -05'00'
United States District Judge

Page 3 of 3