The opinion of the court was delivered by: Reagan, District Judge:
In October 2009, Seyon Haywood filed this lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against four Defendants -- the Warden of Shawnee Correctional Center (Jody Hathaway) and three other correctional officials. Haywood, who alleged deprivations of his federally-secured constitutional rights, amended his complaint in April 2010. The following month in an Order on threshold review, the undersigned Judge dismissed three Defendants, leaving only an Eighth Amendment claim against Defendant Hathaway. Service was ordered on Hathaway, and the lawsuit was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge to handle pretrial proceedings in accord with 28 U.S.C. 636(b), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), and Southern District of Illinois Local Rule 72.1.
Defendant Hathaway answered the complaint on July 26, 2010, and a Scheduling Order was entered under which dispositive motions were due by March 4, 2011. One dispositive motion was filed: Defendant Hathaway's motion for summary judgment filed November 17, 2010 with supporting memorandum (Docs. 23 & 24).
The motion asserts that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing this suit, as required by the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"), 42 U.S.C. 1997e(a). Plaintiff filed a brief and several exhibits opposing Defendant's motion (Doc. 33). United States Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Williams held an evidentiary hearing on the summary judgment motion April 8, 2011.
On April 22, 2011, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b), Magistrate Judge Williams submitted a detailed Report to the undersigned District Judge. The Report recommends that the undersigned Judge adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained therein (Doc. 37, pp. 2-10) and deny Warden Hathaway's motion for summary judgment. The Report clearly states that any objections to Judge Williams' findings and recommendations must be filed "on or before May 9, 2011" (Doc. 37,p. 10).
No objections were filed by that deadline, so this Court need not conduct de novo review. See 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)("A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified findings or recommendations to which objection is made."); Fed. Rule Civ. P. 72(b)(3)("The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to. The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions").
Accordingly, the undersigned District Judge ADOPTS in its entirety Judge Williams' April 22, 2011 Report and Recommendation (Doc. 37) and DENIES Defendant Hathaway's summary judgment motion (Doc. 23).
Michael J. Reagan United States District Judge
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw ...