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.

Hughes v. Maue

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS


April 8, 2008

STEVEN HUGHES, PLAINTIFF,
v.
TOM MAUE, JOE HARPER, PAM GRUBMAN, ED MARTIN, DR. BAIG, DR. FAISA AHMED, AND DOCTOR VALLABHANENI, DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: J. Phil Gilbert District Judge

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on a Report and Recommendation (R&R) of Magistrate Judge Frazier (Doc. 124). Judge Frazier recommends that the Court grant in part the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants Maue, Harper, Grubman, and Martin (Doc. 63) and deny the cross Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Plaintiff Hughes (Doc. 70). Judge Frazier also recommends that the Court grant the unopposed Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants Ahmed, Baig, and Vallabhaneni (Doc. 114) and deny as moot the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Ahmed, Baig and Vallabhaneni (Doc. 110). No parties have objected to the R&R. The time for filing objections has now passed.

After reviewing a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, the Court may accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations of the magistrate judge in the report. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). The Court must review de novo the portions of the report to which objections are made. "If no objection or only partial objection is made, the district court judge reviews those unobjected portions for clear error." Johnson v. Zema Systems 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 R&R in its entirety (Doc. 124). The Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 70) and GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendants's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 63). Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment Claims against Defendants Maue, Harper, Grubman and Martin are DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

The Court GRANTS the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 114) filed by Defendants Ahmed, Baig, and Vallabhaneni. The Court DENIES as moot the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by those Defendants (Doc. 110). The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20080408

© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.



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.