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. 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
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
(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.
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.
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
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