United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
January 29, 2014
CONTRELL PLUMMER, Plaintiff,
WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC., DR. M. FAHIM, and DR. FUENTES, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
MICHAEL J. REAGAN, District Judge.
This case stems from Plaintiff's allegations that Defendants (state and contracted medical providers at Illinois' Menard Correctional Center) acted with deliberate indifference to his asthma, abdominal pain, and back pain, and that Defendants Fahim and Fuentes retaliated against him for complaining. In April 2013, Defendants Fahim and Fuentes filed a motion for summary judgment based on (they argued) Plaintiff's failure to exhaust his administrative remedies.
Under the regime outlined in Pavey v. Conley, 544 F.3d 739 (7th Cir. 2008), Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Williams held a hearing on the motion in October 2013. Shortly thereafter, and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(B) and (c), and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), Judge Williams submitted a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") in which he found Defendants failed to meet their Pavey burden, and that Defendants' summary judgment motion to be dismissed.
The Report was sent to the parties with a notice informing them of their right to appeal by way of objection within fourteen days of service. To date, no objections have been filed, and the period in which objections may be filed has long since passed. The undersigned district judge, therefore, need not conduct de novo review of the R&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140, 149-52 (1985); Banco Del Atlantico, S.A. v. Woods Indus. , 519 F.3d 350, 354 (7th Cir. 2008); Video Views, Inc. v. Studio 21, Ltd. 797 F.2d 538, 539-40 (7th Cir. 1986).
Accordingly, the undersigned ADOPTS (Doc. 65) Judge Williams R&R in its entirety, and DENIES (Doc. 46) Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment.
One more motion warrants immediate attention. Due in part to the delays created by the pendency of their summary judgment motion, Defendants have moved for a 90-day extension to complete discovery on substantive issues. That extension will, necessarily, require moving the July 2014 jury trial date (and other deadlines). The Court GRANTS (Doc. 66) the motion in part, and RESETS the jury trial for Monday, September 29, 2014. The discovery and dispositive motion deadlines shall also be postponed, until March 31, 2014, and April 30, 2014, respectively.
IT IS SO ORDERED.