United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
WALTER D. HILL, Plaintiff,
JOSEPH R. MURPHY and BRAD ROESSLER, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
PHIL GILBERT DISTRICT JUDGE
matter comes before the Court on the Report and
Recommendation (“Report”) (Doc. 230) of
Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Williams recommending that the
Court deny the defendants' motion for summary judgment
(except one claim that the plaintiff has abandoned) (Doc.
183) and motion for judgment on the pleadings (Doc. 208).
Defendants Joseph R. Murphy and Brad Roessler have filed
objections to the Report (Doc. 236), and plaintiff Walter D.
Hill has responded to those objections (Doc. 242).
Court may accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part, the
findings or recommendations of the magistrate judge in a
report and recommendation. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3). The Court
must review de novo the portions of the report to
which objections are made. Id. “If no
objection or only partial objection is made, the district
court judge reviews those unobjected portions for clear
error.” Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d
734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999).
Report, Magistrate Judge Williams found that there were
genuine issues of fact regarding whether the defendants
violated the Fourth Amendment rights of plaintiff Walter D.
Hill when they entered his home on March 19, 2009, detained
him and seized his gun. Magistrate Judge Williams
appropriately credited Hill's testimony when it
conflicted with the defendants', construed the evidence
in his favor, and concluded that a reasonable jury could find
there was insufficient justification for the defendants'
actions. Accordingly, with one exception for an argument Hill
appears to have abandoned, Magistrate Judge Williams
recommended denying the defendants' motions. The Court
has conducted a de novo review of the matters
addressed in the Report and finds as follows.
their objections, the defendants raise a number of immaterial
complaints. For example, they take issue with whether they
admitted they had their guns drawn when they knocked on the
front door to Hill's house. Hill testified that they did, so
regardless of whether the defendants admitted it, the Court
must accept it as true for the purposes of the pending
motions. Thus, whether the defendants made the admission is
immaterial to the resolution of their summary judgment
motion. For another example, the defendants object to
Magistrate Judge Williams's statement that another motion
pending in this case (Doc. 229), but not fully briefed, was
not yet ripe. The Court is hard-pressed to see how Magistrate
Judge Williams's characterization of a separate motion
not yet under consideration by the Court could have any
bearing on his recommendations in the Report. The
defendants' objection is simply not material to the
matters before the Court in the Report. As another example,
the defendants object to Magistrate Judge Williams's
decision to deny as moot their motion to strike
“speculative evidence.” Magistrate Judge Williams
denied the motion as moot because he did not rely on that
evidence in formulating his recommendations. Because the
“speculative evidence” was not material to the
recommendations in the Report, the defendants' objections
to it in connection with the motions discussed in the Report
are likewise not material. Other examples of immaterial
objections are too numerous to mention individually.
objections simply ask the Court to credit the defendants'
statements over Hill's or to draw inferences from
ambiguous or conflicting evidence in the defendants'
favor, which the Court cannot do on summary judgment.
the material objections, the Court has considered the
relevant matters de novo and has determined that,
for the reasons set forth in the Report, Magistrate Judge
Williams was correct in his conclusions and recommendations.
forth above, following a de novo review of the
matter, the Court hereby:
• ADOPTS the Report in its entirety (Doc. 230);
• OVERRULES the defendants' objections (Doc. 236);
• GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the defendants'
motion for summary judgment (Doc. 183). The motion is GRANTED
to the extent it seeks summary judgment on any claim Hill may
have raised for deliberate indifference to his medical needs.
The motion is DENIED in all other respects;
• DENIES the defendants' motion for judgment on the
pleadings (Doc. 208);
• GRANTS the defendants' motion to withdraw (Doc.
247) their motion for an earlier trial setting (Doc. 231);
• FINDS AS MOOT the defendants' motion for an
earlier trial setting (Doc. 231) in light of the ...