IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
September 10, 2007
ERIC PIRTLE, PLAINTIFF,
FAISAL AHMED, M.D., JERRY GOFORTH, AND TYONE MURRAY, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Murphy, Chief District Judge
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson (Doc. 27), recommending that the motion for summary judgment filed by Defendants Goforth and Murray (Doc. 16) be granted and Plaintiff's claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 regarding medical treatment and retaliation be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.*fn1 The Report and Recommendation was entered on August 9, 2007, and no timely objections have been filed.
The motion for summary judgment was filed by Defendants Goforth and Murray before Defendant Ahmed was served with process. Defendant Ahmed asserts failure to exhaust administrative remedies as an affirmative defense (see Doc. 24). Moreover, the affidavit attached in support of summary judgment addresses the medical treatment claim alleged against Defendant Ahmed as well as the retaliation claim alleged against Defendants Goforth and Murray. Therefore, the Court construes the motion for summary judgment as applicable to all claims against all remaining Defendants.
Where timely objections are filed, this Court must undertake a de novo review of the Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), (C); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b); SDIL-LR 73.1(b); Harper v. City of Chicago Heights, 824 F. Supp. 786, 788 (N.D. Ill. 1993); see also Govas v. Chalmers, 965 F.2d 298, 301 (7th Cir. 1992). The Court "may accept, reject or modify the magistrate judge's recommended decision." Harper, 824 F. Supp. at 788. In making this determination, the Court must look at all of the evidence contained in the record and "give 'fresh consideration to those issues to which specific objections have been made.'" Id., quoting 12 Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 3076.8, at p. 55 (1st ed. 1973) (1992 Pocket Part).
However, where neither timely nor specific objections to the Report and Recommendation are made, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), this Court need not conduct a de novo review of the Report and Recommendation. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Wilkerson's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 27),*fn2 and Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Doc. 16) is GRANTED. Plaintiff's medical treatment claim against Defendant Ahmed and his retaliation claim against Defendant Goforth and Murray are DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. As no other claims are pending, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close this case on the Court's docket.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
G. Patrick Murphy Chief United States District Judge