United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
M. YANDLE, United States District Judge.
States Magistrate Judge Reona J. Daly issued a Report and
Recommendation (“Report”) (Doc. 114) recommending
that the motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust
administrative remedies (Doc. 104) be granted in part and
denied in part. The Report was adopted after the parties
filed objections which were untimely and not considered (Doc.
122). Defendants now seek reconsideration of that Order (Doc.
123). The Motion to Reconsider is GRANTED.
However, after considering Defendants’ objections, Judge
Daly’s Report (Doc. 115) is ADOPTED in its
Curtis Pendegraft is proceeding pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983 on a deliberate indifference to medical needs claim
against the defendants for failing to provide adequate
medical care for his osteomyelitis and MRSA at Vienna and
Shawnee from July 2015 through July 2017 (Docs. 9, 40, and
41). Defendants Adams, Wood, David, Rankin and Wexford Health
Care Services moved for summary judgment for failure to
exhaust administrative remedies (Doc. 104). Plaintiff did not
file a response.
Daly issued a Report setting forth the evidence presented by
the parties on the issue of exhaustion, the applicable law,
the requirements of the administrative process, and her
conclusions (Doc. 114). She concluded that Plaintiff failed
to exhaust his administrative remedies as to Defendant Adams
but did exhaust as to Defendants Woods, David, Rankin, and
Wexford. As a result, she recommended that the claim against
Adams be dismissed without prejudice.
Defendants’ objections will now be considered, 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 novo.
Prison Litigation Reform Act requires prisoners to exhaust
all available administrative remedies before filing suit. 42
U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Proper exhaustion requires that
inmates file complaints and appeals in the place, at the
time, and in the manner the prison’s administrative
rules require. Pozo v. McCaughtry, 286 F.3d 1022,
1025 (7th Cir. 2002). Illinois’ Administrative Code
specifies that a grievance must contain “factual
details regarding each aspect of the offender’s
complaint, including what happened, when, where, and the name
of each person who is the subject of or who is otherwise
involved in the complaint.” 20 Ill.Admin.Code §
Plaintiff’s June 4, 2016 grievance, Plaintiff stated
that he was seen by Defendant Blake about his wound and MRSA
infection on April 8, 2016. He was given instructions
regarding the infection and given medication but was not told
to stop working in the kitchen or to be isolated due to the
contagious infection. Plaintiff complained that Blake failed
to follow the instructions on the lab report by failing to
isolate him from others. In the same grievance, Plaintiff
also complained that Defendant David did not see him for his
MRSA infection prior to his transfer to East Moline CC and
that Blake only saw him one time. Finally, Plaintiff stated
that he had been dealing with this problem since March 1,
second grievance dated June 28, 2017, Plaintiff stated that
Defendant Rankin failed to provide adequate medical care. He
further stated that he had suffered multiple infections over
a number of years and that he should have been seen by a
argue these grievances fail to exhaust because they did not
set forth all or the exact same allegations and facts made in
the Complaint. Grievances should provide the prison with
“a fair opportunity to address his complaint.”
Maddox v. Love, 655 F.3d 709, 722 (7th Cir. 2011).
However, they are not meant to mirror Complaints filed in
federal court nor is a plaintiff required to set forth every
theory of relief that he may present in a Complaint or to
identify every defendant later sued. See Jones v.
Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 219 (2007). Each of these grievances
set forth Plaintiff’s concerns about his hip condition
and MRSA infection and the lack of adequate medical care
provided by Blake, David, and Rankin. He also generally
complained that his conditions were not treated adequately
for a number of months, which implicates Wexford’s
policies. That Plaintiff did not fully articulate every cause
of action, every fact suggesting a lack of adequate medical
care, or every policy he believes is unconstitutional, did
not deprive the institution of the opportunity to address his
concerns. In response to the grievances, the Health Care Unit
reviewed Plaintiffs medical records and relayed those records
to the grievance officer and the Administrative Review Board.
In rejecting the grievances, Plaintiff was informed his
medical records revealed that he was receiving adequate
medical care. These grievances were therefore sufficient to
exhaust Plaintiffs claims against Woods, David, Rankin, and
Wexford that his medical conditions were not being treated
the foregoing reasons, the Motion to Reconsider is
GRANTED (Doc. 123).
as set forth in this Court’s previous Order (Doc. 122),
Judge Daly’s Report and Recommendation is again
ADOPTED in its entirety (Doc. 114); the
Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 104) is GRANTED in
part and DENIED in part, and the claims against
Defendant Adams are DISMISSED without
prejudice. Plaintiff shall ...