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. 57), recommending that the Motions for
Summary Judgment filed by Defendants (Docs. 52 and 53) be
granted. Plaintiff filed a timely objection (Doc. 58) to
which Defendants responded (Doc. 59). For the following
reasons, Judge Daly's Report is ADOPTED in part
and MODIFIED in part.
Levi Foerderer filed an Amended Complaint pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 and the Federal Tort Claims Act
(“FTCA”) alleging Defendants failed to protect
him from his violent cellmate:
Count 1: Eighth Amendment claim against
Mathias, Goodrich, and Robinson for failure to protect
Plaintiff from violence at the hands of inmate Perkins;
Count 2: FTCA claim against the United
States for negligence in failing to protect Plaintiff from
violence at the hands of other inmates;
Count 3: FTCA claim against the United
States for negligence in allowing sensitive information about
Plaintiff to be delivered to another inmate in August 2016.
(Docs. 24, 26, and 57). Defendant moved for summary judgment
(Docs. 52 and 53). Foerderer filed a response to both motions
(Doc. 55) to which Defendants replied (Doc. 56).
Daly issued a Report setting forth the applicable law and her
findings (Doc. 57). She concluded that Defendants Mathias,
Goodrich, and Robinson are entitled to summary judgment on
Count 1 because Foerderer's claim is barred by the
doctrine established in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S.
477 (1994) and Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641
(1997). She also found Foerderer conceded that Defendant USA
is entitled to judgment on the FTCA claims.
Plaintiff 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 Plaintiff: Foerderer was transferred to FCI
Greenville on May 4, 2015. For the next year, he spoke to
Defendants Mathias, Goodrich, and Robinson on multiple
occasions about his general fear of being attacked because he
had been a cooperating witness and had been attacked at a
17, 2016, Foerderer was assigned a new cellmate, Michael
Perkins. They initially got along, but a problem arose when
they were issued an incident report for contraband, a tattoo
needle that belonged to Foerderer. Both Perkins and Foerderer
appeared before a Disciplinary Hearing Officer
(“DHO”) and were found guilty of ...