September 23, 2013
ABEL LUCIO, Plaintiff,
DR. SANTOS, J. STEWART, C. PITTS, AND LT. FRIERSON, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
MICHAEL J. REAGAN United States District Judge
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Williams (Doc. 94), recommending that this Court deny Defendant’s motion for summary judgment based on exhaustion (Doc. 60). The Report and Recommendation was entered on August 9, 2013. No objections have been filed.
Plaintiff filed this case pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Specifically, he alleges that he was assaulted by other inmates and, when he went to receive medical attention for his injuries on July 2, 2010, he was forced into a humiliating and painful anal examination over his objection (Doc. 1). Plaintiff also alleges that someone in the examination room broadcasted his assault to other prisoners (Doc. 1). Further, Plaintiff claims that Defendant Santos withheld pain medication from him (Doc. 1).
On March 29, 2013, Defendant Santos filed a motion for summary judgment on the basis that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. As required by Pavey v. Conley, 544 F.3d 739 (7th Cir. 2008), Magistrate Judge Williams held an evidentiary hearing on Defendant’s motion on August 7, 2013. Following the Pavey hearing, Magistrate Judge Williams issued the Report and Recommendation currently before the Court (Doc. 94). The Report and Recommendation accurately states the nature of the evidence presented by both sides on the issue of exhaustion, as well as the applicable law and the requirements of the administrative process.
Where timely objections are filed, this Court must undertake a de novo review of the Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), (C); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); SDIL-LR 73.1(b); Harper v. City of Chicago Heights, 824 F.Supp. 786, 788 (N.D. Ill. 1993); see also Govas v. Chalmers, 965 F.2d 298, 301 (7th Cir. 1992). The Court “may accept, reject or modify the magistrate judge's recommended decision.” Harper, 824 F.Supp. at 788. In making this determination, the Court must look at all of the evidence contained in the record and “give 'fresh consideration to those issues to which specific objections have been made.'” Id., quoting 12 Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 3076.8, at p. 55 (1st ed. 1973) (1992 Pocket Part). However, where neither timely nor specific objections to the Report and Recommendation are made, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), this Court need not conduct a de novo review of the Report and Recommendation. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).
While a de novo review is not required here, the Court has considered the evidence and fully agrees with the findings, analysis, and conclusions of Magistrate Judge Williams. The undersigned District Judge agrees that the evidence presented demonstrates that the grievance process became unavailable to Plaintiff as to the grievances filed prior to September 2, 2010. Plaintiff properly began the administrative process while at Centralia Correctional Center and never received responses to all of his grievances. Although the September 2, 2010 grievance was not properly exhausted, the undersigned District Judge agrees with Magistrate Judge Williams that the issues raised by this grievance were already raised by other grievances to which Plaintiff never received a response. Thus, the September 2, 2010 grievance is not dispositive to those claims.
The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Williams’ Report and Recommendation (Doc. 94) and DENIES Defendant’s motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies (Doc. 60). All of Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Santos will remain in the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.