Hart v. David et al

Filing 27

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, The Court will ADOPT the Report and Recommendation in its entirety (ECF No. 25), FIND that Hart exhausted his administrative remedies before filing suit, and DENY the defendants' motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 22). Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 2/4/2019. (jdh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
ERIC HART,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 3:18-cv-00567-JPG-RJD

ALFONSO DAVID,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
J. PHIL GILBERT, DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff Eric Hart—formerly an inmate at Shawnee Correctional Center—filed this
Eighth Amendment case against prison doctor Alfonso David, alleging that Dr. David was
deliberately indifferent to Hart’s medical needs. (See generally ECF No. 8.) The defendant has
since moved for summary judgment in this case on the grounds that Hart failed to exhaust his
administrative remedies prior to filing suit: a prerequisite of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. 42
U.S.C. § 1997e(a); see also Pavey v. Conley, 544 F.3d 739 (7th Cir. 2008). Magistrate Judge
Reony J. Daly then issued a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) finding that Hart did in fact
exhaust his administrative remedies, and accordingly recommending that this Court deny the
defendant’s motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 25.) The defendants have since objected to
the Report. (ECF No. 26.)
The Court may accept, reject, or modify—in whole or in part—the findings or
recommendations of the magistrate judge in a report and recommendation. FED. R. CIV. P.
72(b)(3). The Court must review de novo the portions of the report to which objections are made.
Id. “If no objection or only partial objection is made, the district court judge reviews those

1

unobjected portions for clear error.” Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir.
1999).
Here, the Court has reviewed the record de novo and agrees with Magistrate Judge Daly’s
determinations. Dr. David had argued that Hart’s grievances were not sufficient enough to put
the prison on notice that Hart was complaining about Dr. David specifically—particularly
because the grievances do not address Dr. David by name. (See ECF Nos. 23, 26.) But just as
Magistrate Judge Daly explained, Hart’s grievance repeatedly refers to Hart’s alleged treatment,
or lack thereof, by his medical doctor at the facility—and if the prison simply opened up Hart’s
medical records, then they would have quickly discovered that the treating physician was Dr.
David. Accordingly, the Court will ADOPT the Report and Recommendation in its entirety
(ECF No. 25), FIND that Hart exhausted his administrative remedies before filing suit, and
DENY the defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 22).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: FEBRUARY 4, 2018
s/ J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

2