United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
J. ROSENSTENGEL United States District Judge.
before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United
States Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson (Doc. 61), which
recommends granting in part, denying in part, and finding
moot in part the Motion for Summary Judgment on the Issue of
Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies filed by Defendants
Butler, Schwarz, Oakley, Bochantin, Lashbrook, Marcinkowska,
and Dwight (Doc. 40) and denying the Motion for Summary
Judgment filed by Defendant Wexford Health Sources, Inc.
(Doc. 42). For the reasons explained below, the Court adopts
Magistrate Judge Wilkerson's Report and Recommendation.
April 13, 2016, Plaintiff Scott Hildreth filed a three-count
Amended Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(see Doc. 26), alleging Defendants violated his
constitutional rights while he was an inmate at Menard
Correctional Center. Specifically, Hildreth claims Defendants
Butler, Schwarz, Lashbrook, Oakley, Marcinkowska, and Dwight
discriminated against him and denied him reasonable
accommodations for his Parkinson's disease, in violation
of the Americans with Disabilities Act and 42 U.S.C. §
1983 (Count 1); Defendants Butler, Schwarz, and Oakley failed
to timely refill his necessary prescription medications,
causing his symptoms to worsen as well as serious withdrawal
side effects, in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth
Amendments (Count 2); and, Defendant Wexford maintained
policies and customs that caused the violations in Count 2
September 29, 2016, Defendants Butler, Schwarz, Lashbrook,
Oakley, Bochantin, Marcinkowska, and Dwight filed a motion
for summary judgment on the issue of exhaustion of
administrative remedies (Doc. 40). The following day,
Defendant Wexford filed its own motion for summary judgment
on the issue of exhaustion (Doc. 42). In their motions,
Defendants argue that Hildreth failed to exhaust his
administrative remedies prior to filing suit; thus, they are
entitled to summary judgment.
April 18, 2017, Magistrate Judge Wilkerson held a hearing
pursuant to Pavey v. Conley, 544 F.3d 739 (7th Cir.
2008), and subsequently issued the Report and Recommendation
currently before the Court. Objections to the Report and
Recommendation were due on or before June 1, 2017.
See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P.
72(b)(2); SDIL-LR 73.1(b). No objections were filed.
Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Wilkerson found
that Hildreth's July 7, 2012, April 8, 2014, October 25,
2014, October 30, 2014, and May 29, 2015 grievances were
sufficiently exhausted, despite the fact that he did not
appeal these grievances to the Administrative Review Board
(“ARB”), because Hildreth received the relief he
was requesting from prison officials. Since there was no
further relief available, there was no requirement that
Hildreth appeal those grievances. Magistrate Judge Wilkerson
further found that Hildreth's November 16, 2015 grievance
was sufficiently exhausted when Hildreth attempted to appeal
the Warden's decision to the ARB one week after the
Warden responded. Although the ARB did not receive the
grievance until after the time period to appeal expired,
Defendants presented no evidence that any delay in the
receipt of the grievance was attributable to Hildreth.
found that Hildreth exhausted his administrative remedies
with regard to these grievances, Magistrate Judge Wilkerson
then examined whether the grievances sufficiently complained
about the actions taken by Defendants in this lawsuit.
Magistrate Judge Wilkerson found that Hildreth's May 29,
2015 grievance was sufficient to identify Defendants Oakley
and Butler and, thus, exhaust his claim as to these
Defendants in Count 1. The grievances did not, however,
sufficiently identify or describe Defendants Marcinkowska or
Dwight such that his claims against these Defendants were
exhausted. Thus, Magistrate Judge Wilkerson recommended that
Defendants Marcinkowska and Dwight be dismissed from this
action without prejudice.
Magistrate Judge Wilkerson found that Hildreth failed to
exhaust his claims as to Defendants Oakley and Butler in
Count 2 when no grievance complained that these Defendants
contributed to the delay in Hildreth's receipt of
prescription medications. Therefore, Magistrate Judge
Wilkerson recommended dismissing Count 2 without prejudice.
Magistrate Judge Wilkerson found that Hildreth's
grievances dated April 8, 2014, October 25, 2014, and
November 16, 2015 were sufficient to exhaust his claim in
Count 3 against Defendant Wexford when a plain reading of the
grievances indicates Hildreth was complaining about
Wexford's insufficient policies regarding the
distribution of medication.
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). The Court 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).
de novo review is not required here, the Court has
carefully reviewed the evidence 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
Wilkerson. Hildreth's May 29, 2015 grievance stated that
Hildreth had asked for assistance in filing for ADA
accommodations and was refused/denied such help (Doc. 46-10).
Because Defendants Oakley and Butler were the ones who
refused/denied Hildreth's previous grievance asking for
such help (Docs. 46-8, 46-9), Hildreth's May 29, 2015
grievance put these Defendants on notice about the complained
of conditions. Because Defendants Marcinkowska and Dwight
were not mentioned in the grievance, however, and because
they had no hand in denying Hildreth's previous grievance
related to his request for ADA accommodations, they were not
put on notice of Hildreth's claims and, thus, are
properly dismissed from this action. Similarly, no grievance
complains that Defendants Oakley and Butler contributed to
the delay in Hildreth's receipt of medical care for his
Parkinson's disease. Thus, dismissal of Count 2 is
appropriate. Finally, Hildreth's grievances regarding the
lapses in his prescriptions for his Parkinson's disease
were sufficient to put Wexford on notice that Hildreth was
complaining about its policies for distributing prescription
medication. (Docs. 43-4, 46-4, 46-6).
Court finds no clear error in Magistrate Judge
Wilkerson's Report and Recommendation. Thus, the Court
ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Wilkerson's Report and
Recommendation (Doc. 61) in its entirety and GRANTS in part,
DENIES in part, and finds MOOT in part the Motion for Summary
Judgment filed by Defendants Butler, Schwarz, Lashbrook,
Oakley, Bochantin, Marcinkowska, and Dwight (Doc. 40). Count
1 is DISMISSED without prejudice as to Defendants
Marcinkowska and Dwight, and Count 2 is DISMISSED without
prejudice in its entirety. Furthermore, the Motion for
Summary Judgment, as it pertains to Defendants Schwarz,
Lashbrook, and Bochantin, is MOOT. The Motion for Summary
Judgment filed by Defendant Wexford Health Sources, Inc.
(Doc. 42) is DENIED.