Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

GILLS v. RILEY

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois


August 8, 2005.

DALE GILLS, Plaintiff,
v.
S. RILEY, C/O HOERNER, ERICK PLOTT, C/O HAMBY, C/O PEARSON, LORRAINE WOODS, and C/O ROLFE Defendants.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: DAVID HERNDON, District Judge

ORDER

On December 17, 2002. Dale Gills, an inmate at Tamms Correctional Center, filed suit against Defendants for deprivations of his constructional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1). Gills claims that Defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights by using excessive force on him (Count 1) and denying him medical treatment (Count 2). He also brings a Illinois common law claim of assault and battery against Defendants (Count 3).

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Magistrate Judge Clifford J. Proud submitted a Report and Recommendation ("the Report") on July 14, 2005 (Doc. 72). The Report recommends that the Court grant Defendant Lorraine Wood's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 61). The Report was sent to the parties with a notice informing them of their right to appeal by way of filing "objections" within ten days of service of the Report. To date, none of the parties has filed objections. The period in which to file objections has expired. Therefore, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), this Court need not conduct de novo review. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-52 (1985).

  Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report (72). The Court GRANTS Defendant Woods' motion for summary judgment on Count 2(Doc. 61).*fn1 At the close of the case, the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in favor of Lorraine Woods and against Dale Gills on Count 2 of the Amended Complaint. Further, the record reflects that despite the fact that the Court dismissed with prejudice Defendant Cox on preliminary review, Gills named him in the caption of the Amended Complaint. As was the case in the original complaint, the body of the Amended Complaint does not contain any allegations against Cox. Thus, the Court DISMISSES with prejudice Defendant Cox. Counts 1 and 3 remain pending.

  IT IS SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.