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.

Hunt v. Lohman

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

August 12, 2019

LESHURN HUNT, Plaintiff,
v.
RANDY LOHMAN, DR. VIPIN SHAH, and TRACI PEEK, [1]Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

         This 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).

         The 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).

         Background

         Hunt, 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 claims:

Count 1: Excessive force against Defendant Lohman; and
Count 2: Deliberate indifference to a serious medical need against Defendants Shah and Peek.

(Doc. 65).

         On 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.

         The Report and Recommendation

         Judge 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.

         As to 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.

         Discussion

         Here, 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 ‚Äúpartial objection is made, the district ...


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.