Torres v. Butler et al

Filing 25

ORDER ADOPTING 23 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION and DENYING 11 Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by Plaintiff Norberto Torres. Signed by Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel on 11/13/2018. (mlp)

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

NORBERTO TORRES,
Plaintiff,
vs.
KIMBERLY BUTLER, WILLIAM
SPILLER, KENT BROOKMAN,
TERRANCE JACKSON, and
SHANA BEBOUT,
Defendants.

Case No. 3:18-CV-1091-NJR-DGW

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ROSENSTENGEL, District Judge:
Plaintiff Noberto Torres filed this pro se lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against
Defendants Kimberly Butler, William Spiller, Kent Brookman, Terrance Jackson, and Shana
Bebout for violating his constitutional rights while he was an inmate of the Illinois
Department of Corrections (Doc. 1). Torres asserts Defendant Bebout retaliated against him
for failing to provide information relevant to an investigation by writing him a false
disciplinary report in violation of the First Amendment (Id.; Doc. 10). He further claims all
Defendants violated his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights when they found him
guilty of the false disciplinary report (Id.).
Along with his complaint, Torres requested preliminary injunctive relief in the form
of an order requiring Defendants and all future wardens, committee members, and grievance
officers to “immediately cease their illegal practices of disregarding exonerating evidence in
disciplinary hearings and illegally placing prisoners in punitive segregation” (Doc. 1). He
also seeks an order directing the same individuals to abide by the Illinois Administrative

Page 1 of 2

Code, to provide adequate due process and equal protection of the law to prisoners during
all hearings, and to begin recording the audio of all disciplinary hearings (Id.).
On October 10, 2018, Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson entered the Report and
Recommendation currently before the Court, which recommends that the motion for
injunctive relief be denied (Doc. 23). Objections to the Report and Recommendation were due
September 10, 2018 (Id.). No objections were filed.
Because no party has filed an objection, the undersigned District Judge need not
undertake de novo review. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734,
741 (7th Cir. 1999). Instead, the Court should review the Report and Recommendation for
clear error. Johnson, 170 F.3d at 739. 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).
While de novo review is not required here, the Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge
Wilkerson’s Report and Recommendation for clear error. Following this review, the Court
agrees with his findings, analysis, and conclusions. The undersigned accordingly ADOPTS
the Report and Recommendation in its entirety (Doc. 23). Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary
Injunction (Doc. 11) is DENIED without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: November 13, 2018
___________________________
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
United States District Judge

Page 2 of 2