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.

Arnoldd v. Butler

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

September 3, 2019

SEAN ARNOLD, Plaintiff,
v.
KIMBERLY BUTLER, S.A. GODINEZ, TERRI ANDERSON, M. HOF, WEXFORD HEALTH SERVICES, INC., JOHN DOE, and JACQUELINE LASHBROOK, Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          STACI M. YANDLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“Report”) of United States Magistrate Judge Reona J. Daly (Doc. 123), recommending that the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant Wexford Health Services, Inc. (Doc. 98) be granted, the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants Anderson, Butler, Godinez, Hoff, and Lashbrook (Doc. 105) be granted, and the Motion to Strike filed by Wexford (Doc. 120) be granted. Defendants Anderson, Butler, Godinez, Hof, and Lashbrook filed a timely objection (Doc. 125) to which Arnold responded (Doc. 128). For the following reasons, Judge Daly's Report is ADOPTED.

         Background

         Plaintiff Sean Arnold filed a Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging Defendants failed to protect him and were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Arnold's claims relate to his incarceration at Menard Correctional Center from October 22, 2014 to July 7, 2015. Pursuant to an Amended Complaint, he is proceeding on the following claims:

Count 1 - Butler failed to protect Plaintiff from a violent attack by his cellmate in violation of the Eighth Amendment after receiving a grievance notifying her of potential danger to Plaintiff.
Count 2 - Godinez and Anderson failed to protect Plaintiff from a violent attack by his cellmate in violation of the Eighth Amendment by denying a grievance from him requesting protective custody.
Count 3 - Hof and John Doe 2 failed to protect Plaintiff from a violent attack by his cellmate after Plaintiff informed them of the danger he faced, in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
Count 4 - Wexford showed deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's serious medical need involving injuries to his head in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

(Doc. 10). Defendants, except John Doe 2 who Arnold has not identified, moved for summary judgment (Doc. 98 and 105). Arnold filed responses (Docs. 114, 115, 12, and 122). Defendant Wexford filed a reply and Motion to Strike Exhibit B (Doc. 120) to which Arnold did not respond.

         Judge Daly issued a Report setting forth the applicable law and her conclusions (Doc. 123). She concluded that Defendants Butler, Godinez, Anderson, and John Doe 2 are entitled to summary judgment because there is no evidence that they were aware of and disregarded a known hazard to Plaintiff's health and safety, that there is no evidence a Wexford policy or procedure violated Arnold's constitutional rights, and that a question of fact exists which precludes summary judgment on Arnold's claim that Hof failed to protect him. Finally, Judge Daly recommends that Arnold's affidavit and accompanying exhibits be stricken for failure to sign the affidavit and produce the documents in discovery.

         Legal Standard

         Since Defendants filed an objection, this Court must undertake a de novo review of Judge Daly's findings and recommendations. 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). De novo review requires the district judge to “give fresh consideration to those issues to which specific objections have been 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.” Mendez v. Republic Bank, 725 F.3d 651, 661 (7th Cir. 2013). The Court “may accept, reject or modify the magistrate judge's recommended decision.” Id. Consistent with these standards, the Court has reviewed Judge Daly's Report de novo.

         Factual Background

         As the parties do not dispute the facts set forth in Judge Daly's Report, they are incorporated herein. The following highlighted facts are relevant to the limited objection made by Defendants: A few days after Arnold was transferred to Menard, he was housed in the segregation unit with another inmate named Reliford. While they initially did not have problems, within a few days, Reliford asked other ...


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.