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.

Michael Hall v. Mr. Thomas

IN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS


May 22, 2012

MICHAEL HALL, PLAINTIFF,
v.
MR. THOMAS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

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

ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on Magistrate Judge Philip Frazier's Report and Recommendation ("R & R") (Doc.55) wherein it was recommended the defendants' motion for summary judgment (Doc. 33) be granted. The defendants moved for summary judgment on the basis of plaintiff Hall's failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Hall filed an objection to the R&R (Doc. 57).

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 has discretion to conduct a new hearing and may consider the record before the magistrate judge anew or receive any further evidence deemed necessary. Id. The Court must review de novo the portions of the report to which specific written objections are made. Id. "If no objection or only partial objection is made, the district court Judge reviews those unobjected portions for clear error." Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999).

This is the second time the Court has reviewed the pending motion for summary judgment (Doc. 41). In the first R&R (Doc. 37), Magistrate Judge Frazier recommended summary judgment be granted for the failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Hall objected (Doc. 38) and attached grievances which Magistrate Judge Fraizer had not previously had the opportunity to consider. The Court thus rejected the R&R in order for Magistrate Judge Frazier to conduct a thorough second review. On March 12, 2012, there was an evidentiary hearing in accordance with Pavey v. Conley, 544 F.3d 739, 740 (7th Cir. 2008). After this hearing, Magistrate Judge Fraizer reviewed the case again and wrote a new R&R again recommending the motion for summary judgment be granted (Doc. 55).

Hall has filed another objection (Doc. 57). His objection, however, has no relevance to the case at bar. Hall makes racial allegations and attacks Magistrate Judge Frazier's credibility. Hall briefly states the guards are destroying his grievances, however, Magistrate Judge Frazier considered this evidence in both R&Rs and the Pavey hearing. After reviewing Magistrate Judge Frazier's R&R and Hall's objection, the Court finds the R&R to be correct. It is an accurate statement of the law and Hall has presented no new information to cause the Court to question the facts.

The Court therefore ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation in its entirety (Doc. 55) thus GRANTING defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 33). The Court further DENIES as moot the remaining pending motions (Doc. 54, 57) as there are no issues left in this case. The Court directs the Clerk of the Court to enter judgment accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

J. Phil Gilbert

20120522

© 1992-2012 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.