United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A. BEATTY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
matter has been referred to United States Magistrate Judge
Mark A. Beatty by United States District Judge Nancy J.
Rosenstengel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B),
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), and SDIL-LR 72.1(a)
for a Report and Recommendation on Defendants Dennison,
Millis, Allard, Smoot, Engler, and Benton's motion for
summary judgment (Doc. 180), Defendants Burrell and
David's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 182), and
Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a motion for summary
judgment out of time (Doc. 198). It is recommended the
District Court adopt the following findings of fact and
conclusions of law, and the motion for summary judgment (Doc.
180) be GRANTED, the motion for summary
judgment (Doc. 182) be GRANTED in part, DENIED in
part, and the motion for leave (Doc. 198) be
DENIED as moot.
Findings of Fact
Charles Dent, an inmate with the Illinois Department of
Corrections (“IDOC”) brings this action pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged deprivations of his
constitutional rights that occurred at Shawnee Correctional
Center (“Shawnee”). In his complaint, Plaintiff
alleges Thomas Burrell, Alfonso David, Karen Smoot, Jeffery
Dennison, Harry Allard, Deda Millis, Stephen Engler, and
Sherry Benton (“Defendants”) violated his Eighth
Amendment rights by exhibiting deliberate indifference to a
serious medical need. Specifically, he alleges Defendants
failed to intervene in Plaintiff's medical care for his
dental issues with tooth number 31.
the Court's threshold review of Plaintiff's complaint
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court allowed
Plaintiff to proceed on the following counts:
COUNT 1: Burrell failed to promptly and
properly treat Dent's abscess and abscess related
complications, in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
COUNT 2: Burrell made improper treatment
decisions and wrote a false disciplinary report against Dent
because Dent filed grievances against him concerning his
treatment, in violation of the First Amendment.
COUNT 3: David, Smoot, Dennison, Allard,
Millis, Engler, and Benton violated the Eighth Amendment by
not intervening in Dent's dental care.
COUNT 4: David failed to properly treat
Dent's migraine-related problems from May 2016 to August
2016, in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
(Doc. 6, p. 8). Dennison remained in the case in his official
capacity for responding to injunctive orders (Id.).
Allard, Benton, Dennison, Engler, Millis, and Smoot
(“IDOC Defendants”) filed a motion for summary
judgment (Doc. 180); Plaintiff filed a response in opposition
to the motion (Doc. 184). After the Court granted counsel for
Plaintiff leave to withdraw because Plaintiff wished to
proceed pro se, Plaintiff filed an additional
response in opposition to the motion (Doc. 194). IDOC
Defendants then filed a reply to Plaintiff's second
response (Doc. 195). Plaintiff then filed a response the
reply (Doc. 197).
Burrell, a dentist at Shawnee, and David, a doctor at Shawnee
(“Wexford Defendants”) filed a motion for summary
judgment (Doc. 182); Plaintiff filed a response in opposition
to the motion (Doc. 186). Wexford Defendants then filed a
reply to Plaintiff's response (Doc. 189). Again, after
the Court granted counsel for Plaintiff leave to withdraw
because Plaintiff wished to proceed pro se,
Plaintiff filed an additional response in opposition to the
motion (Doc. 193). Wexford Defendants then filed a reply to
Plaintiff's second response (Doc. 196).
in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, the
evidence and the reasonable inferences that can be drawn from
it establish the following relevant facts for purposes of the
instant motions for summary judgment.
Relevant Facts Related to IDOC Defendants' Motion for
August 23, 2016, Plaintiff filed an emergency grievance with
Defendant Dennison seeking dental care based on “Dr.
Burrell's botched extraction on 8-15-16.” (Doc.
194, p. 7); Defendant Dennison denied Plaintiff's
grievance (Id.). On August 15, Plaintiff also filed
another standard grievance seeking proper diagnosis and
treatment, but Defendant Allard denied the grievance based on
Defendant Dennison's response to Plaintiff's
emergency grievance (Id.).
on August 23, Plaintiff wrote Defendant Smoot concerning his
denial of proper dental treatment because “Dr. Burrell
refuse [sic] to see Plaintiff and several C/O's witness
[sic] the swelling, bleeding and pain . . ..”
(Id.). Defendant Smoot received Plaintiff's
letter as indicated by a date stamp (Id.). Plaintiff
further contends Defendant Smoot was aware of numerous
complaints against Defendant Burrell (Id.). On
September 12, after Defendant Dennison denied Plaintiff's
third emergency grievance, Defendant Millis denied as
duplicative Plaintiff's other related grievances (Doc.
194, p. 10). On October 10 and 27, Plaintiff wrote Defendant
Benton concerning his denial or proper dental treatment (Doc.
194, p. 8). Plaintiff also contends Defendant Engler was
aware of Plaintiff's need for help because of
Plaintiff's grievances from August to October 2016.
Relevant Facts Related to Wexford Defendants' Motion for
times relevant, Defendant David was the Shawnee Medical
Director and licensed to practice medicine in the State of
Illinois (Doc. 183-2). As the Medical Director, Defendant
David is “responsible for resolving problems related to
patient issues and complaints, but he is typically not
involved in responding to or reviewing offender grievances