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.

Mondrea Vinning v. Adrian Feinerman

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS


June 17, 2011

MONDREA VINNING, PLAINTIFF,
v.
ADRIAN FEINERMAN, DEFENDANT.

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

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Williams (Doc. 90) recommending that Defendant Adrian Feinerman's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 85) be granted, and Plaintiff Mondrea Vinning's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 87) be denied.

In June 2008, Mondrea Vinning, proceeding pro se, filed suit alleging deprivations of his constitutional rights by multiple prison officials alleging five disparate claims, ranging in nature from deliberate indifference to his injured back, to the improper assessment of copying changes (Doc. 1).

On threshold review in March 2009, the undersigned Judge granted Vinning pauper status and, pursuant to George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007), and Fed.R.Civ.P. 20(a)(2), dismissed all but one claim without prejudice (Doc. 6). The case proceeded on Count 1, alleging Defendants Hulick, Grubman and Feinerman were deliberately indifferent to Vinning's serious medical needs, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. More specifically, Vining, who has a bullet lodged in his back and severe arthritis and related pain, claims that Defendants refused to provide him with treatment, medication and an extra or better mattress. What remained of the case was referred to the Honorable Donald G. Wilkerson, United States Magistrate Judge. More recently, the case was reassigned from Judge Wilkerson to United States Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Williams.

By Order dated March 31, 2010, defendants Hulick and Grubman were dismissed without prejudice, due to Vinning's failure to exhaust administrative remedies as to the claims against them (Doc. 51). At this juncture, only Defendant Feinerman remains.

On March 31, 2011, Defendant Feinerman moved for summary judgment (Doc. 85). By way of response, Vinning filed his own motion for summary judgment (Doc. 87). On May 24, 2011, Magistrate Judge Williams submitted a detailed Report (Doc. 90) recommending that the undersigned Judge grant Defendant Feinerman's motion and deny Plaintiff Vinning's motion.

Both the Report (Doc. 90, p. 11) and a separate Notice attached thereto (Doc. 90-1) advised the parties of their right to challenge Judge Williams' findings and conclusions by filing "objections" June 8, 2011. To date, no objections have been filed by the parties, no extension of the deadline was sought, and the period in which such objections may be filed 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); Video Views Inc., v. Studio 21, Ltd., 797 F.2d 538 (7th Cir. 1986).

Accordingly, the undersigned District Judge ADOPTS in its entirety Judge Williams' Report and Recommendation (Doc. 90), GRANTS Defendant Feinermans' motion for summary judgment (Doc. 85), DENIES Plaintiff Vinning's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 87), and DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to enter final judgment in this action, as the Court has disposed all claims against all Defendants. Judgment shall be in favor of all Defendants and against Plaintiff Vinning.

MICHAEL J. REAGAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20110617

© 1992-2011 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.