Opinion
Case No. 15-cv-01405-JPG-SCW
03-28-2017
DAVID BRADFORD, Plaintiff, v. SGT KRAMER, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the court on the Report and Recommendation ("R & R") (Doc. 39) of Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Williams with regard to Defendants' Motion (Doc. 22) for Summary Judgment. It is noted that objections to the R & R were required to be filed by February 13, 2017. However, plaintiff was transferred and the Court resent the R & R and allowed an extra response period until March 27, 2017. That time has expired and there are no objections by either party to the R & R.
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. The Court has discretion to conduct a new hearing and may consider the record before the magistrate judge anew or receive any further evidence deemed necessary. Id. "If no objection or only partial objection is made, the district court judge reviews those unobjected portions for clear error." Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999).
The Court has received no objection to the R & R. The Court has reviewed the entire file and finds that the R & R is not clearly erroneous. Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report in its entirety (Doc. 39) and GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendants' Motion (Doc.22) for Summary Judgment. The Court finds that the defendants have not demonstrated that the Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and summary judgment is DENIED in that regard. However, summary judgment is GRANTED with regard to plaintiff's first amendment claim and plaintiff's first amendment claim is DISMISSED without prejudice. As such, this matter is proceeding on a single RLUIPA claim.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: 3/28/2017
s/J . Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
DISTRICT JUDGE