United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
HERNDON, District Judge:
before the Court is a May 31, 2018 Report and Recommendation
(“the Report”) issued by Magistrate Judge Reona
J. Daly (Doc. 78). Magistrate Judge Daly recommends that the
Court deny Morris's motion for class certification (Doc.
12). The parties were allowed time to file objections to the
Report. On June 13, 2018, Morris filed an objection to the
Report (Doc. 83). 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 class certification (Doc.
12). Specifically, Morris argues that he and “other ADA
inmates with similar disabilities” are being denied
access to numerous services and activities and thus a class
action is proper.
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).
23, 2017, Magistrate Judge Daly issued the Report (Doc. 78)
and on June 13, Morris filed his objection (Doc. 83). The
Court turns now to address the Report and the objection.
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.
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).
determining whether to certify a class, a district court
first must find that the requirements of Federal ...