United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
HERNDON, DISTRICT JUDGE
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.
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.
December 12, 2017, the Court screened Morris's amended
complaint and found the following claims to survive:
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;
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).
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
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).
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 “preliminary injunction is
an extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that should ...