United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
J. ROSENSTENGEL, United States District Judge
matter comes before the Court on the Report and
Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson (Doc.
117), which recommends denying the Motion to Enforce the
Preliminary Injunction filed by Plaintiff Joecephus Mitts
(Doc. 94). For the reasons set forth below, the Court adopts
the Report and Recommendation in its entirety.
an inmate currently incarcerated at Centralia Correctional
Center, alleges that his constitutional rights were violated
when medical personnel at Lawrence Correctional Center
delayed and denied treatment for his mycosis fungoides, a
rare T-cell lymphoma of the skin. Along with his complaint,
Mitts filed a motion for preliminary injunction (Doc. 3)
asserting Defendants failed to comply with the treatment
recommendations of Dr. Hurley, an outside dermatologist, and
impeded his ability to attend necessary follow-up
appointments. On March 29, 2016, the Court granted the motion
in part, ordering Defendants to facilitate a referral to Dr.
Hurley to perform a follow-up exam within 30 days. The Order
also stated that Mitts need not be seen for additional
follow-up care as long as he refused to receive UV
phototherapy treatment. Dr. Hurley examined Mitts on April
20, 2016, and recommended several medications and treatments
for his condition.
September 1, 2016, Mitts filed the instant Motion to Enforce
the Preliminary Injunction, claiming that, since his transfer
to Centralia, Dr. Santos refused to follow Dr. Hurley's
recommendations. In response, Defendants argued that Dr.
Santos saw Mitts on July 8, 2016. Dr. Santos continued Mitts
on his current doses of medications and ordered him a special
razor, but Mitts refused UV phototherapy treatment despite
Dr. Hurley's recommendation to receive such therapy three
times a week. When Mitts next saw Dr. Santos on July 25,
2016, he finally agreed to undergo UV phototherapy treatment,
which began on August 31, 2016.
hearing on Mitts's motion, Mitts informed Magistrate
Judge Wilkerson that he was receiving all of the recommended
treatment, but that he did not have all the personal
protective gear required for his UV phototherapy treatment.
The Director of Nursing at Centralia testified that Mitts has
been provided with safety googles and a sock to cover his
genitalia. Mitts also complained that he had not seen Dr.
Hurley since his appointment on April 20, 2016.
on this information, Magistrate Judge Wilkerson found that
Mitts was not entitled to preliminary injunctive relief.
Mitts is receiving the treatment recommended by Dr. Hurley
and has been provided protective gear for the UV phototherapy
treatment. As such, he is not suffering irreparable harm due
to Defendants' failure to provide adequate medical
treatment. Furthermore, although there was a gap in his
referrals to see an outside specialist, that gap was
consistent with the Court's order that Mitts was not
required to receive follow-up exams if he continued to refuse
phototherapy treatment. Once he did agree to the treatment,
he was referred to see Dr. Hurley in October 2016.
Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Wilkerson concluded there has
been no inadequacy in Mitts's treatment that may cause
him to suffer immediate and irreparable harm absent a
preliminary injunction. The Report and Recommendation was
entered on June 6, 2017 (Doc. 117). 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). 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).
Court has carefully reviewed Mitts's motion, the record,
and Magistrate Judge Wilkerson's Report and
Recommendation. Following this review, the Court fully agrees
with the findings, analysis, and conclusions of Magistrate
Judge Wilkerson and finds no clear error. Mitts has not
sufficiently demonstrated that he will suffer imminent,
irreparable harm absent injunctive relief. See Planned
Parenthood v. Commissioner of Indiana State Dept.
Health, 699 F.3d 962, 972 (7th Cir. 2012) (“To
obtain a preliminary injunction, the moving party must
demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits,
no adequate remedy at law, and irreparable harm absent the
injunction.”). Mitts is receiving the treatment
prescribed by Dr. Hurley, he is undergoing UV phototherapy
treatment, and he is being provided with personal protective
gear for the UV phototherapy treatment. While there was a gap
in his referrals to see an outside specialist, the gap was
consistent with this Court's order that a follow-up exam
was not necessary if Mitts was not undergoing UV
phototherapy. Once he agreed to undergo the therapy, his
follow up exams resumed.
the Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge
Wilkerson's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 117) in its
entirety and DENIES Plaintiff Joecephus
Mitts's Motion to Enforce Preliminary Injunction (Doc.