United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
J. ROSENSTENGEL United States District Judge
matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation
of United States Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson (Doc.
46), which recommends denial of Plaintiff's Motion for
Preliminary Injunction and Order of Protection (Doc. 24) and
denial of Plaintiff's Second Motion for Preliminary
Injunction and Order of Protection (Doc. 33).
Gregory J. Turley, an inmate in the Illinois Department of
Corrections, filed this pro se lawsuit pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff asserts that Defendant
Jennifer L. Clendenin retaliated against him in violation of
his First Amendment Rights. Specifically, Plaintiff asserts
that, after filing a grievance on October 6, 2011 complaining
about Defendant and her qualifications (or lack thereof) to
be a paralegal assistant, as well as her failure to properly
execute her duties, Defendant engaged in a series of
retaliatory actions, including inducing correctional officers
to assault Plaintiff and destroying electronic case filing
notices transmitted from this Court to Plaintiff. Plaintiff
asserts that, due to the retaliatory acts of Defendant, he
suffers from severe headaches, lower left jaw pain, anxiety,
depression, irritable bowel syndrome, and constant fear.
seeks preliminary injunctive relief asking the Court to: (1)
provide Plaintiff with an order of protection with regard to
Defendant; (2) deny Defendant's access to Menard and
reassign her to a different institution; (3) render Plaintiff
eligible to file a new action against Correctional Officer
Held; (4) enter an order instructing Defendant to provide the
names of law library inmate clerks so he can identify the
prisoners who have participated in a conspiracy to retaliate
against him; and (5) order Defendant to put the name and
register number of her inmate clerks on their shirts so they
can be identified while handling Plaintiff's law library
request. Plaintiff also asks that the Court hold an immediate
hearing so that he can present the factual basis for his
a hearing to be unnecessary, Magistrate Judge Wilkerson
issued the Report and Recommendation currently before the
Court (Doc. 46). Objections to the Report and Recommendation
were due on or before August 15, 2016. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 626(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2); SDIL-LR73.1(b). No
objections were filed.
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). Where
neither timely nor specific objections to the Report and
Recommendation are made, however, this Court need not conduct
a de novo review of the Report and Recommendation.
See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Instead, the
Court should review the Report and Recommendation for clear
error. Johnson v. Zema Systems Corp., 170 F.3d 734,
739 (7th Cir. 1999). A judge may then “accept, reject,
or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Court has carefully reviewed Plaintiffs motion and Magistrate
Judge Wilkerson's Report and Recommendation for clear
error. Following this review, the Court fully agrees with the
findings, analysis, and conclusions of Magistrate Judge
has failed to sufficiently demonstrate that he will suffer
imminent, irreparable harm absent preliminary injunctive
relief. While the physical ailments Plaintiff suffers from
are unpleasant, they are not of the type that causes
irreparable harm. Further, the actions Plaintiff complains of
have an adequate remedy available at law. As such, the Court
finds no justification for the “extraordinary and
drastic remedy” of injunctive relief.Mazurek v.
Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997).
the Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge
Wilkerson's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 46) in its
entirety, DENIES Plaintiffs Motion for
Preliminary Injunction and Order of Protection (Doc. 24), and
DENIES Plaintiffs Second Motion for
Preliminary Injunction and Order of Protection (Doc. 33).
IS SO ORDERED.
Magistrate Judge Wilkerson explained,
to the extent Plaintiff is seeking relief from individuals
not named in this lawsuit or seeking to add defendants to
this lawsuit, Plaintiffs motions ...