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
Gilbert C. Sison (Doc. 79), recommending the undersigned
grant Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 55).
Plaintiff filed a timely objection (Doc. 80). For the
following reasons, Judge Sison's Report and
Recommendation is ADOPTED.
Darryl Shannon is currently incarcerated at Stateville
Correctional Center (“Stateville”). He brings
this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983, asserting constitutional violations that
occurred while he was confined at Menard Correctional Center
(“Menard”). Shannon claims Defendants Michael
Astin and Zachary Fitzgerald violated his Eighth Amendment
rights by failing to provide him with medical assistance
during a severe asthma attack that occurred around 6:00 p.m.
on June 29, 2014. Defendants moved for summary judgment,
contending they were not working at the time of Shannon's
Report, Judge Sison considered the following evidence: Menard
maintains a roster of the correctional officers who work each
shift in the segregation unit where Shannon was assigned
during his asthma attack. The roster for June 29, 2014,
establishes that Astin worked from 7:00 a.m. until 3:00 p.m.,
and did not work overtime on June 29, 2014. Astin also
submitted a Declaration stating that he leaves Menard after
his shifts end. Fitzgerald had the day off on June 29, 2014.
Fitzgerald submitted a Declaration stating that June 29, 2014
was his scheduled day off and he was not present at Menard
that day. Shannon testified that his cell door - made of
solid steel - remained closed and the door only had a small
window that was difficult to see through. Based on this
evidence, Judge Sison concluded a reasonable jury could not
find that either defendant was one of the officers who
allegedly failed to respond to Plaintiff's asthma attack.
a timely objection was filed, the undersigned must undertake
a de novo review of the Report. 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 Court to
“give fresh consideration to those issues to which
specific objections have been made” and to 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.
indifference to serious medical needs of prisoners may
constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth
Amendment. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104
(1976). Causation of harm is an essential element of a
deliberate indifference to medical needs claim. See
Henderson v. Sheahan, 196 F.3d 839, 848 (7th Cir. 1999).
To succeed on such a claim, a plaintiff must demonstrate both
that he has suffered an ‘actual' present injury and
that there is a causal connection between that injury and the
deprivation of a constitutionally protected right caused by a
raises no objections to the factual findings in the Report.
His primary objection is to the denial of his multiple
motions for recruitment of counsel. However, there is no
constitutional or statutory right to counsel in federal civil
cases. Romanelli v. Suliene, 615 F.3d 847, 851 (7th
Cir. 2010); see also Johnson v. Doughty, 433 F.3d
1001, 1006 (7th Cir. 2006). Shannon's submissions to the
Court demonstrate that he possesses the literacy,
communication skills and intellectual capacity to litigate
his case. As such, the Court finds that the denial of
appointed counsel is not grounds for denying Defendants'
motion for summary judgment and, therefore, overrules
Court also agrees with Judge Sison that there is insufficient
evidence from which a reasonably jury could conclude that
either defendant was one of the officers who responded to
Plaintiffs asthma attack. There is no evidence that
Defendants were working at the time of Shannon's asthma
attack, and it is undisputed that Shannon could not see out
of the small window of his cell to identify the guards. The
evidence, even when viewed in Shannon's favor, warrants
granting summary judgment for Defendants.
thoroughly reviewing the record before it, the Court finds
Judge Sison's factual findings and analysis to be
thorough and accurate and ADOPTS his Report
and Recommendation (Doc. 79) in its entirety. Accordingly,
Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 55) is
GRANTED and Plaintiffs claims are
DISMISSED with prejudice. The Clerk of Court
is DIRECTED to enter judgment accordingly.