United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
J. ROSENSTENGEL CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court on a Report and Recommendation of
United States Magistrate Judge Mark A. Beatty (Doc. 112),
which recommends that the Court deny the motion for summary
judgment filed by Defendant Randy Lohman (Docs. 99 and 100)
and deny the motion for summary judgment filed by Defendant
Dr. Vipin Shah (Docs. 101 and 102).
Report and Recommendation was entered on June 5, 2019.
Defendant Lohman has filed an Objection to the Report and
Recommendation (Doc. 113). Plaintiff Leshurn Hunt has filed a
Response to that Objection (Doc. 114).
an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections
(“IDOC”), was incarcerated at Pinckneyville
Correctional Center (“Pinckneyville”) at the time
he initiated this action. Hunt proceeds on the following
Count 1: Excessive force against Defendant Lohman; and
Count 2: Deliberate indifference to a serious medical need
against Defendants Shah and Peek.
March 8, 2019, Defendant Lohman filed a Motion for Summary
Judgment (Docs. 99 and 100) arguing that Hunt's claims
are barred by the statute of limitations. On that same day,
Defendant Dr. Shah filed Motion for Summary Judgment (Docs.
101 and 102) arguing that he is entitled to summary judgment
on Hunt's deliberate indifference claim against him.
Report and Recommendation
Beatty recommends denying both Motions for Summary Judgment.
As to Defendant Lohman, Judge Beatty found his timeliness
argument unavailing because the doctrine of equitable tolling
applies. Specifically, Judge Beatty found that the applicable
statute of limitations was tolled during the time Defendant
Spiller failed to produce discovery that would have allowed
Hunt to have identified Defendant Lohman sooner.
Defendant Dr. Shah, Judge Beatty found that there was a
genuine issue of material fact as to whether Defendant Dr.
Shah became aware of Hunt's unanswered medical requests.
Thus, Judge Beatty also concluded that summary judgment was
not warranted on the deliberate indifference claim against
Defendant Dr. Shah.
Defendant Lohman has filed a timely objection to the Report
and Recommendation. When timely objections are filed, the
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). This requires the Court to look at all evidence
contained in the record and give fresh consideration to those
issues to which specific objections have made and make a
decision “based on an independent review of the
evidence and arguments without giving any presumptive weight
to the magistrate judge's conclusion.”
Harper, 824 F.Supp. at 788 (citing 12 Charles Alan
Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 3076.8,
at p. 55 (1st ed. 1973) (1992 Pocket Part)); Mendez v.
Republic Bank, 725 F.3d 651, 661 (7th Cir. 2013). If
only a “partial objection is made, the district ...