United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
DAVID L. HOFFMANN, Plaintiff,
ROBERT HERTZ, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
PHIL GILBERT DISTRICT JUDGE
matter comes before the court on the Report and
Recommendation (“R & R”) [Doc. 107] of
Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Williams recommending that this
Court deny defendants' motions for summary judgment. The
defendants filed objections to the R & R [Docs. 108 &
109] in a timely manner.
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. The Court has discretion to
conduct a new hearing and may consider the record before the
magistrate judge anew or receive any further evidence deemed
necessary. 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).
The defendants have filed objections, so this Court will
review de novo those portions of the R & R to
which objections have been filed.
Plaintiff filed his amended complaint and upon threshold
review, was allowed to proceed on the following claims:
Count I: a conditions of confinement claim for exposure to
raw sewage and deprivation of fresh water against Defendants
Schmidt, Bost, Hertz, Sellers, Walker, Dover, McNaughton,
Reichart, Beckley, and Hallenbeck for incidents that occurred
on an unspecified day in mid-June 2014, August 16, 2014,
September 6, 2014, September 17, 2014, December 27, 2014, and
June 14, 2015;
Count II: a conditions of confinement claim regarding mold in
the cellblock against Defendant Reichart;
Count III: a conditions of confinement claim regarding the
plumbing issues in Plaintiff's individual cell from July
4 to July 14, 2015 against Defendants Beckley, Hallenbeck,
Schmidt, Hill, Bost, and Dover; and
Count IV: a deliberate indifference claim to serious medical
needs against Defendants Marty, Allysia, and Vallery.
[Doc. 62, pgs. 10 & 11].
Robert Hertz filed a Motion [Doc. 76] to Dismiss or in the
alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment and the remaining
defendants also filed a Motion [Doc. 82] to Dismiss or in the
alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment shortly thereafter.
Since both motions attach materials outside of the pleadings,
these motions must be treated as motions for summary judgment
pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 56.
judgment must be granted “if the movant shows that
there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the
movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,
477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986); Spath v. Hayes Wheels
Int'l-Ind., Inc., 211 F.3d 392, 396 (7th Cir. 2000).
The reviewing court must construe the evidence in the light
most favorable to the nonmoving party and draw all reasonable
inferences in favor of that party. See Anderson v.
Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986);
Chelios v. Heavener, 520 F.3d 678, 685 (7th Cir.
2008); Spath, 211 F.3d at 396.
initial summary judgment burden of production is on the
moving party to show the Court that there is no reason to
have a trial. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323;
Modrowski v. Pigatto, 712 F.3d 1166, 1168 (7th Cir.
2013). Where the non-moving party carries the burden of proof
at trial, the moving party may satisfy its burden of
production in one of two ways. It may present evidence that
affirmatively negates an essential element of the non-moving
party's case, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A),
or it may point to an absence of evidence to support an
essential element of the non-moving party's case without
actually submitting any evidence, see Fed. R. Civ.
P. 56(c)(1)(B). Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322-25;
Modrowski, 712 F.3d at 1169. Where the moving party
fails to meet its strict burden, a court cannot enter summary
judgment for the moving party even if the opposing party
fails to present relevant evidence in response to the motion.
Cooper v. Lane, 969 F.2d 368, 371 (7th Cir. 1992).
responding to a summary judgment motion, the nonmoving party
may not simply rest upon the allegations contained in the
pleadings but must present specific facts to show that a
genuine issue of material fact exists. Celotex, 477
U.S. at 322-26; Anderson, 477 U.S. at 256-57;
Modrowski, 712 F.3d at 1168. A genuine issue of
material fact is not demonstrated by the mere existence of
“some alleged factual dispute between the parties,
” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 247, or by “some
metaphysical doubt as to the material facts, ”
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp.,
475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). Rather, a genuine issue of material
fact exists only if “a fair-minded jury could return a
verdict for the [nonmoving party] on the evidence
presented.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252. As the
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has repeatedly stated,
“summary judgment is the ‘put up or shut up'
moment in the life of a case.” AA Sales &
Assocs. v. Coni-Seal, Inc., 550 F.3d 605, 612 (7th Cir.
regard to the conditions of confinement, the defendants all
argue that since they did not have the authority to obtain
funds to repair the sewage system, they cannot be held to be
deliberately indifferent to the conditions. However, the R
& R found that summary judgment was not appropriate since
the plaintiff was alleging specific incidents of being
exposed to raw sewage and that the defendants ...