Bentz v. Mulholland et al

Filing 34

ORDER ADOPTING 31 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel on 3/11/2019. (jmp2)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
DAVID ROBERT BENTZ,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
WILLIAM QUALLS, JASON FURLOW, )
YANKEY, DEAN GROSS, KRISTA
)
ALLSUP, JACQUELINE LASHBROOK, )
THREAD GILL, FRITSCHE, MISS
)
MEARS, and MR. JAMES,
)
)
Defendants.
)

Case No. 3:18-CV-1064-NJR-RJD

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ROSENSTENGEL, District Judge:
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of United
States Magistrate Judge Reona J. Daly (Doc. 31), which recommends denying the motions
for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order filed by Plaintiff David
Robert Bentz (Docs. 8, 13, & 15). For the reasons set forth below, the Court adopts the
Report and Recommendation in its entirety.
Bentz, an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections (“IDOC”) currently
incarcerated at Menard Correctional Center, alleges his constitutional rights were
violated when Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs after he
injured his finger, and retaliated against him for exercising his First Amendment rights
by harassing him, using excessive force against him, and/or failing to intervene to stop

Page 1 of 4

the force (Doc. 1). Bentz’s deliberate indifference claims have been severed into a separate
action (Doc. 7.).
In his complaint, Bentz requested the Court to “immediately arrange for
Defendant’s Jason Furlow, Mason Yankey, Dean Gross, Sgt. Mr. James, to be T.R.O. from
this Plaintiff” and to arrange for Bentz to receive pain medication, muscle relaxers, and
medical attention for his finger (Id.). On May 7, 2018, District Judge David Herndon
denied the request (Doc. 4), but added a motion for preliminary injunction to the docket
for further consideration (Doc. 8). 1 Bentz sought reconsideration of Judge Herndon’s
Order, which was denied on June 7, 2018 (Doc. 7).
On June 29, 2018, Bentz filed a motion for preliminary injunction, temporary
restraining order, and sanctions against Defendant Allsup (Doc. 13). He alleges Allsup
retaliated against him for filing this action by issuing him a false disciplinary ticket, which
resulted in denial of his access to the law library, commissary, legal storage, exercise time,
and showers (Doc. 13). On July 26, 2018, Bentz filed a motion for preliminary injunction
in all 15 cases he has pending in this Court, alleging he is indigent and being denied
writing supplies necessary to the pursuit of his lawsuits (Doc. 15).
Defendants responded to the July 2018 motion arguing, in part, that Bentz is no
longer indigent, based on the balance of his Inmate Trust Fund account; his motion is
unrelated to any of the issues in this case; Bentz filed a myriad of documents across
multiple cases, including a 159-page complaint, during the time he was allegedly denied

On December 19, 2018, the case was transferred to the undersigned District Judge because of
Judge Herndon’s upcoming retirement (Doc. 33).
1

Page 2 of 4

access to writing supplies; and the potential harm to the IDOC that would result from
granting the injunction outweighs the harm to plaintiff that would occur if the injunction
was denied (Doc. 16).
On December 5, 2018, Judge Daly recommended that Bentz’s motions be denied
(Doc. 31). She found Bentz’s request for preliminary injunction in his complaint fails to
demonstrate a likelihood of imminent, irreparable harm. Judge Daly noted that the last
alleged incident of harassment occurred in December 2017, and Bentz has not alleged any
more recent incidents since. Judge Daly denied Bentz’s request for medical attention
because the deliberate indifference claims were severed into another suit. Judge Daly
rejected Bentz’s subsequent requests for preliminary injunctions against Defendant
Allsup and for writing supplies, because the motions improperly assert additional claims
and/or name additional defendants. Judge Daly also reasoned that granting Bentz’s
motions would require the Court to interfere with the day-to-day administration of an
IDOC facility. Finally, she pointed out that Bentz has made numerous filings in this case,
so there seems to be no interference with his ability to litigate. Objections to the Report
and Recommendation were due December 19, 2019, but none were filed.
Where timely objections are filed, this Court must undertake a de novo review of
the Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B), (C); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b); SDILLR 73.1(b); Harper v. City of Chicago Heights, 824 F. Supp. 786, 788 (N.D. Ill. 1993); see also
Govas v. Chalmers, 965 F.2d 298, 301 (7th Cir. 1992). Where neither timely nor specific
objections to the Report and Recommendation are made, however, this Court need not
conduct a de novo review of the Report and Recommendation. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S.
Page 3 of 4

140 (1985). Instead, the Court should review the Report and Recommendation for clear
error. Johnson v. Zema Systems Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999). The Court may then
“accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by
the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The Court has carefully reviewed Bentz’s complaint, the record, and Magistrate
Judge Daly’s Report and Recommendation. Following this review, the Court fully agrees
with the findings, analysis, and conclusions of Judge Daly and finds no clear error. All of
Bentz’s motions fail to demonstrate he will suffer imminent, irreparable harm absent
preliminary injunctive relief. He has not alleged any harassing incidents involving the
officials named in his initial request since December 2017, his request for medical
attention is unrelated to this case, and his other requests improperly add new claims
and/or defendants. Additionally, granting the preliminary injunctions would result in
improper interference with IDOC’s administration of its facility.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Daly’s Report and
Recommendation (Doc. 31) in its entirety and DENIES the motions for preliminary
injunction (Docs. 8, 13, & 15) filed by Plaintiff David Bentz.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 11, 2019
___________________________
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
United States District Judge

Page 4 of 4