Summary
interpreting Illinois grievance procedure to permit prisoner to submit signed and fully completed grievance faxed by prisoner's mother to appropriate official
Summary of this case from Behning v. JohnsonOpinion
Case No. 11-cv-1083-MJR-SCW
07-03-2013
PIERRE JAMES, Plaintiff, v. KEVIN CARTWRIGHT, OFFICER WOLTERS, OFFICER SCHOENBECK, OFFICER SWINEY, OFFICER HEIMAN, OFFICER LANE, and OFFICER SCOTT, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
REAGAN, District Judge:
In this civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. 1983 in December 2011, Pierre James, an inmate at Stateville Correctional Center, presents claims that he was subjected to excessive force by correctional officers (the so-called "Orange Crush" tactical team) at Menard Correctional Center, in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Currently pending is a January 22, 2013 motion for summary judgment filed by Defendant Kevin Cartwright. Plaintiff responded to the motion, and the Honorable Stephen C. Williams, Magistrate Judge, conducted an evidentiary hearing on the motion in May 20, 2013. On June 5, 2013, Judge Williams submitted a Report and Recommendation (R&R) to the undersigned District Judge.
Kevin Cartwright is referred to in prior pleadings and identified on the docket sheet as "K. Cartwright" or "Sgt. Cartwright." The Clerk's Office shall correct the docket sheet (and the parties should change the caption of future pleadings) to list this Defendant as Kevin Cartwright.
The detailed R&R (Doc. 51) recommends that Defendant Cartwright's summary judgment motion be denied. The Report notified the parties that they must file any objections "on or before June 24, 2013" (Doc. 51, p. 10). That deadline elapsed nine days ago, and no objections were filed by any party. Accordingly, pursuant to U.S.C. 636(b), the undersigned Judge need not conduct de novo review of the Report and Recommendations. 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(C) ("A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made."). See also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Johnson v. Zema Systems Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 741 (7th Cir. 1999); Video Views Inc., v. Studio 21, Ltd., 797 F.2d 538 (7th Cir. 1986).
The Court hereby ADOPTS the R&R (Doc. 51) in its entirety and DENIES Defendant Cartwright's summary judgment motion (Doc. 30). Two other motions now are pending, just recently filed by Plaintiff (Docs. 56 and 63). They will be ruled on by Judge Williams after they have ripened.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________
Michael J. Reagan
United States District Judge