The opinion of the court was delivered by: Reagan, District Judge
This action was filed in accordance with Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), and 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Plaintiff William D. Williams is a federal inmate currently incarcerated at the United States Penitentiary in Lee County, Virginia ("USP-Lee"). Williams takes issue with the dental care he received while at the United States Penitentiary in Marion, Illinois ("USPMarion"); he further alleges that his transfer from USP-Marion to USP-Lee was done in retaliation for filing complaints about dental care; and he asserts he was denied "the equal protection of the law." More specifically, he alleges that defendant Ron McCuan and others, including the Bureau of Prisons, all were deliberately indifferent to his serious dental needs, in violation of the Eighth Amendment; retaliated against him for filing grievances, in violation of the First Amendment; and violated his right to the equal protection of the law, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Defendant Ron McCuan, the Chief Dental Officer at USP-Marion, is sued in both his official and individual capacities, as are all other defendants.
On January 6, 2006, defendant McCuan filed a motion seeking dismissal of all claims against him, pursuant to FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 12(b); in the alternative, his motion sought summary judgment pursuant to FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 56 (see Doc. 37).
On July 20, 2006, Magistrate Judge Clifford J. Proud submitted a Report (Doc. 71) recommending that the undersigned District Judge grant McCuan's motion for summary judgment in all respects (see Doc. 71, p. 6).
On July 20, 2006, that 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. Notably, although the "notice" required that objections be filed within ten days in accordance with SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS LOCAL RULE 73.1(b), all parties were allowed until August 7, 2006 to file objections. This gave all parties 11 business days -- 17 days total -- to respond to Magistrate Proud's Report. This Court granted the parties an amount of time to respond that was greater than that required by LOCAL RULE 73.1(b) in order to account for any difficulty that Williams, as an incarcerated individual, might have had in meeting the standard deadline.
Nevertheless, Williams failed to file a timely objection to Magistrate Proud's Report, and did not file any objection until September 11, 2006 (see Doc. 76). That objection has been filed over a month past the expiration of the extended objection deadline imposed by this Court. While this Court is cognizant of the obstacles pro se incarcerated individuals often face in litigating, to consider Williams' objection as timely filed would be prejudicial to the opposing party in this matter, and would be inappropriate under the present circumstances.*fn1 Accordingly, 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); Video Views Inc., v. Studio 21, Ltd., 797 F.2d 538 (7th Cir. 1986).
The Court ADOPTS in its entirety Magistrate Judge Proud's Report (Doc. 71) and GRANTS McCuan's motion for summary judgment in all respects (Doc. 37). The Court GRANTS summary judgment against Williams and in favor of McCuan on all claims against McCuan. McCuan is no longer a party to this action.
MICHAEL J. REAGAN United States ...