Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Bentz v. McGlorn

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

September 23, 2019

DAVID ROBERT BENTZ, Plaintiff,
v.
SHARON MCGLORN, MICHAEL MOLDENHAUER, RASHIDA POLLION, MOHAMMED SIDDIQUI, M.D., JOHN TROST, M.D., WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC., et al., [1] Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

         This matter is before the Court on a Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Reona J. Daly (Doc. 160), which recommends that the Motion for Summary Judgment Based on Exhaustion filed by Defendants Sharon McGlorn, Michael Moldenhauer, Rashida Pollion, Mohammed Siddiqui, M.D., John Trost, M.D. and Wexford Health Sources, Inc., be granted in part.

         The Report and Recommendation was entered on September 3, 2019. Plaintiff David Robert Bentz (“Bentz”) has filed an Objection to the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 162).

         Background

         Bentz, an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections (“IDOC”), is incarcerated at Menard Correctional Center (“Menard”). Bentz proceeds on the following counts:

Count 1: Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to medical needs claim against Defendants Trost, Monjie, McGlorn, Jane Does Nurse 1, 2, and 15, Threadgill, Lang, Kirk, John/Jane Doe Medical Staff 3, Waller, Little, Westfall, John Doe Sgt. 16, Skidmore, Mears, Moldenhaur, Marshall, John/Jane Doe Medical Staff 7, Shah, Hawkins, Siddiqui, Lafone, Pollion, and Wexford for failing to adequately address the injuries that Bentz sustained on May 11, 2014 and the chronic pain he continues to experience.
Count 3: First Amendment retaliation claim against Mears and Lang for refusing to provide Bentz with medical care in retaliation for his filing lawsuits.

         On February 18, 2019, Defendants McGlorn, Moldenhauer, Pollion, Siddiqui, Trost and Wexford filed a Motion for Summary Judgment based on failure to exhaust administrative remedies (Docs. 90 and 91). Despite being granted two extensions of time by Judge Daly, Bentz failed to timely respond to the motion.

         The Report and Recommendation

         Judge Daly recommends granting in part the motion for summary judgment. Judge Daly found the following grievances to be relevant to the issue of exhaustion of administrative remedies: October 2, 2014 grievance; June 15, 2016 grievance; June 30, 2016 grievance; August 11, 2017 grievance; September 2, 2017 grievance; October 10, 2017 grievance; January 26, 2018 grievance; and March 16, 2018 grievance.

         Judge Daly found that the October 2, 2014 grievance failed to mention or describe Defendants Dr. Trost, McGlorn, and Pollion or their alleged actions at issue in this case. She further found that the June 15, 2016 and June 30, 2016 grievances were not timely appealed to the ARB and, therefore, did not serve to fully exhaust Bentz’s administrative remedies. As to the September 2, 2017 grievance, Judge Daly found that, although it mentioned Defendant Moldenhauer and Wexford, it did not address their alleged actions at issue in this case. As to the October 10, 2017 grievance, Judge Daly found that this grievance was fully exhausted and alleged that Wexford, Moldenhauer, and Dr. Siddiqui failed to treat Bentz’s neck injury and chronic pain. Judge Daly found that the grievances filed on January 26, 2018 and March 16, 2018 were not fully exhausted until after Bentz filed his Amended Complaint.

         Thus, Judge Daly recommends granting summary judgment as to Defendants Dr. Trost, McGlorn and Pollion based on Bentz’s failure to exhaust his administrative remedies against them. She recommends denying summary judgment as to the remaining defendants.

         Discussion

         When timely objections to a Report and Recommendation are filed, the Court must undertake a de novo review of the Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), (C); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); SDIL-LR 73.1(b); Harper v. City of Chicago Heights, 824 F.Supp. 786, 788 (N.D. Ill. 1993); see also Govas v. Chalmers, 965 F.2d 298, 301 (7th Cir. 1992). This requires the Court to look at all evidence contained in the record and 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.” Harper, 824 F.Supp. at 788 (citing 12 Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 3076.8, at p. 55 (1st ed. 1973) (1992 Pocket Part)); Mendez v. Republic Bank, 725 F.3d 651, 661 (7th Cir. 2013). If only a ‚Äúpartial objection is made, the district judge ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.