Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Morris v. Baldwin

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

June 13, 2018

BARRY MORRIS, Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN BALDWIN, et al., Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          HERNDON, DISTRICT JUDGE

         Introduction and Background

         Pending before the Court is a May 23, 2018 Report and Recommendation (“the Report”) issued by Magistrate Judge Reona J. Daly (Doc. 74). Magistrate Judge Daly recommends that the Court deny Morris's motion for preliminary injunction (Doc. 13). The parties were allowed time to file objections to the Report. On June 6, 2018, Morris filed an objection to the Report (Doc. 79). Based on the applicable law, the record and the following, the Court ADOPTS the Report in its entirety.

         Plaintiff Barry Morris brought this pro se action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the American with Disabilities Act (“ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act (“RA”). According to the amended complaint, Morris alleges that he is being denied reasonable accommodation under the ADA and the RA. Morris suffers from a herniated disc and spinal stenosis, nerve damage in his right hand/arm, which is also partially paralyzed, benign prostatic hyperplasia and high blood pressure. At the same time Morris filed his amended complaint, he filed a motion for preliminary injunction (Doc. 13). In his motion for preliminary injunction, Morris asks to be transferred from Menard Correctional Center and for the use of crutches.

         On December 12, 2017, the Court screened Morris's amended complaint and found the following claims to survive:

         Count 1: IDOC, Baldwin, Bradley, Lashbrook, Lawrance, Miluer, Meyer, Rowold, Hawkins, and Walls failed to provide reasonable accommodation for Morris's disability in violation of the ADA and RA[1];

         Count 2: IDOC, Baldwin, Bradley, Lashbrook, Lawrance, Miluer, Hawkins, Walls and Wexford were deliberately indifferent to Morris's request for accommodation and treatment of his disabilities in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Doc. 15).

         On May 17, 2018, Magistrate Daly held an evidentiary hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction in which each side had witnesses testify and took the matter under advisement (Doc. 72). On May 23, 2017, Magistrate Judge Daly issued the Report (Doc. 74) and on June 6, 2018, Morris filed his objection (Doc. 79). The Court turns now to address the Report and the objection.

         Analysis

         The Court's review of the Report is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), which provides in part:

A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made. A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The judge may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) also directs that the Court must only make a de novo determination of those portions of the report and recommendation to which specific written objection has been made. Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999). If no objection or only a partial objection is made, the Court reviews those unobjected portions for clear error. Id. In addition, failure to file objections with the district court “waives appellate review of both factual and legal questions.” Id. Under the clear error standard, the Court can only overturn a Magistrate Judge's ruling if the Court is left with “the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” Weeks v. Samsung Heavy Indus. Co., Ltd., 126 F.3d 926, 943 (7th Cir. 1997).

         “The purpose of preliminary injunctive relief is to minimize the hardship to the parties pending the ultimate resolution of the lawsuit.” Platinum Home Mortg. Corp. v. Platinum Fin. Group, Inc., 149 F.3d 722, 726 (7th Cir. 1998). For a preliminary injunction under Rule 65, Morris must demonstrate that: (1) his underlying case has some likelihood of success on the merits; (2) no adequate remedy at law exists, and; (3) Morris will suffer irreparable harm without the injunction. Woods v. Buss, 496 F.3d 620, 622 (7th Cir. 2007). If those three factors are shown, the district court must then balance the harm to each party and to the public interest from granting or denying the injunction. Id.; Korte v. Sebelius, 735 F.3d 654, 665 (7th Cir. 2013); Cooper v. Salazar, 196 F.3d 809, 813 (7th Cir.1999). The United States Supreme Court has emphasized that a ‚Äúpreliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that should ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.