United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
July 11, 2014
MICHAEL WIDMER, Plaintiff,
C/O KILPATRICK, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL, District Judge.
On November 6, 2013, Plaintiff Michael Widmer filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that Defendant C/O Kilpatrick was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs in violation of the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution when Kilpatrick failed to get Plaintiff medical care after being attacked by another inmate. The case comes before the Court on a Report and Recommendation entered on June 19, 2014, by Magistrate Judge Philip M. Frazier (Doc. 29).
In the Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Frazier recommends that Plaintiff's Motion for Injunctive Relief (Doc. 20) be denied (Doc. 29). The parties were informed that their deadline for objecting to Magistrate Judge Frazier's Report and Recommendation was July 7, 2014-a date that has come and gone. Because no party has filed an objection, the undersigned need not undertake de novo review. 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. ") (emphasis added). See also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Johnson v. Zema Sys. 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, after reviewing the record, cannot conclude that the Report and Recommendation is clearly erroneous. See Johnson, 170 F.3d at 739 ("If no objection or only partial objection is made, the district court judge reviews those unobjected portions for clear error.").
The undersigned accordingly ADOPTS the Report & Recommendation (Doc. 29) in its entirety and rules as follows: the Motion for Injunctive Relief (Doc. 20) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.