United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
M. Yandle United States District Judge
Craig Cesal, an inmate in the custody of the Federal Bureau
of Prisons ("BOP"), filed this lawsuit pursuant to
Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971),
alleging that his constitutional rights were violated while
he was incarcerated at Federal Correctional Institution at
Greenville, Illinois ("FCI Grenville").
Specifically, Plaintiff alleged medical staff were
deliberately indifferent in their treatment of his diabetes
moved for summary judgment, arguing the evidence established
that Defendants were not deliberately indifferent to
Plaintiffs medical condition (Doc. 46). Magistrate Judge Daly
issued a Report and Recommendation ("Report")
recommending that the undersigned grant Defendants'
Motion. Plaintiff did not file an objection (Doc.
55). On February 4, 2019, this Court
adopted Judge Daly's Report and granted Defendants'
Motion for Summary Judgment (see Doc. 58). Now
pending before the Court is Plaintiffs Motion for
Reconsideration (Doc. 59). For the following, the Motion is
60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits a party
relief from a judgment for a number of reasons including
mistake or "any other reason justifying relief from the
operation of judgment." Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). However,
relief under Rule 60(b) is an extraordinary remedy and is
only granted in exceptional circumstances. United States
v. 8136 S. Dobson St., Chicago III., 125 F.3d 1076, 1082
(7th Cir. 1997).
neither timely nor specific objections to a Report and
Recommendation are made, the Court reviews the Report and
Recommendation for clear error. Johnson v. Zema Systems
Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999). The Court
found no clear error in Judge Daly's well-reasoned Report
and adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety.
assuming Plaintiffs objections were considered timely, a
de novo review would yield the same result. In his
objections, Plaintiff asserts that Judge Daly's findings
were erroneous in several respects: (1) he was unable to
purchase and was denied cost-free diabetic snacks at FCI
Greenville; (2) Defendants were deliberately indifferent to
his medical needs by denying him adequate supplies of
insulin; and (3) he was denied adequate pain medication for a
2008 spinal injury.
officials have an obligation under the Eighth Amendment to
provide adequate medical care to the incarcerated.
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 103-04 (1976). A
prisoner can show that this obligation has been breached by
establishing, first, that the "deprivation alleged [is],
objectively, sufficiently serious" and, second, that the
depriving official had a "sufficiently culpable state of
mind." Vance v. Peters, 97 F.3d 987, 991 (7th
Cir. 1996) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994)). This
subjective element requires more than a showing of mere
negligence or inadvertent error; it demands "the denial
or delay of medical care" in the face of "a
defendant's actual knowledge of, or reckless disregard
for, a substantial risk of harm." Vance, 97
F.3d at 992 (explaining that Supreme Court has adopted
recklessness standard used in criminal law).
is no question that Type 2 Diabetes presents a serious
medical need. However, viewing the evidence in the light most
favorable to Plaintiff, the Court agrees with Judge Daly that
there was insufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury
could conclude the Defendants were deliberately indifferent
to Plaintiffs diabetic needs. Plaintiff was able to purchase
diabetic snacks from commissary, was provided cost-free
snacks in the health care unit when he experienced
hypoglycemic events, and his diabetes was consistently
monitored over the six months in which it was uncontrolled.
Defendants prescribed Plaintiff various types of insulin to
control his diabetes and modified his treatment plan at least
17 times in the course of six months to control Plaintiffs
blood glucose. Defendants further counseled Plaintiff as to
how he could better control his blood glucose with his diet -
advice, based on commissary records, that Plaintiff regularly
the evidence is insufficient to support Plaintiffs claims
that he was denied adequate pain medications. Defendant
Schneider discontinued Plaintiffs ibuprofen and placed him on
Tylenol in an effort to decrease his rising creatine levels
in his kidneys caused by continual use of ibuprofen. There is
no evidence from which a jury could find that Schneider acted
with deliberate indifference to Plaintiffs pain by
discontinuing his ibuprofen.
has presented no facts or evidence that would warrant Rule
60(b) reconsideration of the Report and Recommendation. After
thoroughly reviewing the record before it, the Court finds
Judge Daly's factual findings and analysis to be thorough
and accurate. Accordingly, Plaintiffs Motion to Reconsider is
IS SO ORDERED.
 Although Plaintiff contends he moved
for an extension of time to object, neither the Court nor
defense counsel ...