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.

Durwyn Talley v. C/O Corey Knop

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


May 19, 2013

DURWYN TALLEY, PLAINTIFF,
v.
C/O COREY KNOP, AND
C/O JAMES KESSEL, DEFENDANTS.

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

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

In this pro se civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. 1983, Durwyn Talley challenged, inter alia, the conditions and treatment he experienced while confined at Lawrence Correctional Center. Prior Orders entered herein (including the August 10, 2012 threshold review Order) resulted in the dismissal of various claims, leaving three causes of action against two correctional officers -- Defendant Knop and Defendant Kessel. Pending in this case is a motion for partial summary judgment filed by Defendants on January 10, 2013. Defendants contend that Talley failed to exhaust his administrative remedies before filing this suit.

On April 25, 2013, Judge Williams submitted a Report recommending that the Court partially grant and partially deny the summary judgment motion (Doc. 41). The Report plainly notified the parties that they must file any objections "on or before May 13, 2013" (Doc. 41, p. 8). That deadline has elapsed, and no objections were filed by any party. Accordingly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b), the undersigned Judge need not conduct de novo review of the Report and Recommendations. 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(C) ("A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made."). See also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Johnson v. Zema Systems Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 741 (7th Cir. 1999); Video Views Inc., v. Studio 21, Ltd., 797 F.2d 538 (7th Cir. 1986).

The Court hereby ADOPTS the Report (Doc. 41), including Judge Williams' detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law contained therein, in entirety. Therefore, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendant's summary judgment motion (Doc. 33). The motion is granted as to Plaintiff's claim that Defendants deprived Plaintiff of medical care needed to treat a serious medical condition. The motion is denied as to Plaintiff's claim that Defendants stole some of Plaintiff's personal property and legal work. Stated another way, Count 3 is dismissed; Counts 1 and 2 remain pending herein.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Michael J. Reagan United States District Judge

20130519

© 1992-2013 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.