United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
M. YANDLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation
("Report") of United States Magistrate Judge Reona
J. Daly (Doc. 34), recommending that the Court grant the
motions for summary judgment on the issue of exhaustion filed
by Defendants Jeff Dennison and Thomas Burrell (Docs. 22 and
29). Plaintiff filed a timely objection (Doc. 36). For the
following reasons, Judge Daly's Report is
Ricky Ryder, an inmate in the custody of the Illinois
Department of Corrections (“IDOC”), filed this
lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that his
constitutional rights were violated while he was incarcerated
at Shawnee Correctional Center (“Shawnee”).
Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Dennison and
Burrell have failed to provide him dentures, which hinders
his ability to chew and digest food. Defendants move for
summary judgment, asserting that Plaintiff failed to exhaust
his administrative remedies prior to filing this lawsuit.
Daly determined that an evidentiary hearing pursuant to
Pavey v. Conley, 544 F.3d 739 (7th Cir. 2008) was
unnecessary and instead ruled based on the evidence set forth
in the parties' briefing. Judge Daly examined
Plaintiff's emergency grievance dated May 3, 2018 and
determined that although Plaintiff submitted the grievance to
the Chief Administrative Officer ("CAO"), he took
no further action after the CAO determined that an emergency
was not substantiated. Judge Daly then concluded that
Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies
because he did not resubmit his grievance through the
non-emergency procedures as required.
timely objections are filed, this 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); see also Govas v. Chalmers, 965 F.2d 298,
301 (7th Cir. 1992). The Court may accept, reject or modify
the magistrate judge's recommended decision. Id.
In making this determination, the Court must look at all of
the evidence contained in the record and give fresh
consideration to those issues to which specific objections
have been made. Id., quoting 12 Charles
Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure
3076.8, at p. 55 (1st Ed. 1973) (1992 Pocket Part).
Prison Litigation Reform Act requires prisoners to exhaust
all available administrative remedies before filing suit. 42
U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Proper exhaustion requires that an
inmate file complaints and appeals in the place, at the time,
and in the manner the prison's administrative rules
require. Pozo v. McCaughtry, 286 F.3d 1022, 1025
(7th Cir. 2002). The Illinois Administrative Code (the
“Code”) governs the grievance and appeals process
available to prisoners. A prisoner may file a grievance in
the normal course which includes: (1) submitting a grievance
to a grievance officer; (2) the grievance officer's
findings and recommendations are reviewed by the CAO; (3) the
CAO renders a decision; (4) the CAO's decision may then
be appealed to the ARB. 20 ILCS §§ 504.830,
a prisoner may request that his or her grievance be reviewed
on an emergency basis. Under the emergency procedures, the
grievance is forwarded directly to the CAO for review and can
then be immediately appealed to the ARB for expedited review.
See §§ 504.840, 504.850(a), 504.850(f). If
the CAO agrees that the grievance should be handled on an
emergency basis, he or she expedites the grievance proceeding
and provides a response to the prisoner's grievance.
§ 504.840(b). If the prisoner still believes that the
emergency grievance has not been satisfactorily resolved by
the CAO, the prisoner can then appeal to the ARB. §
504.850(a). Importantly, the appeals process explicitly
contemplates and applies to both emergency and non-emergency
grievances, as evidenced by the Code's specific
requirement that the ARB expedite the processing of emergency
grievances. § 504.850(f).
Plaintiff does not deny that he failed to appeal his
grievance once the CAO determined that it was not an
emergency; he argues that Defendants should have been on
notice of his inadequate dental treatment when they failed to
provide him with dentures. Whether or not Defendants were on
notice of alleged inadequate dental treatment is irrelevant
to the question of exhaustion and it is apparent that
Plaintiff did not fully exhaust his administrative remedies
prior to filing suit.
Court finds no clear error in Judge Daly's findings,
analysis and conclusions, and adopts her Report and
Recommendation in its entirety. Accordingly, Plaintiffs'
claims against Defendants Dennison and Burrell are
DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to
exhaust administrative remedies. The Clerk of Court is
DIRECTED to close this case.