United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
STACI
M. YANDLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
This
matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation
("Report") of United States Magistrate Judge Reona
J. Daly (Doc. 31) recommending the granting of Defendant
Siddiqui's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 28) and
Defendant Lawrence's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 24).
Plaintiff filed an objection (Doc. 34)[1]. For the
following reasons, Judge Daly's Report is
ADOPTED.
Background
Plaintiff
Dwayne Towns, an inmate in the custody of the Illinois
Department of Corrections (“IDOC”), filed this
lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that his
constitutional rights were violated while he was incarcerated
at Menard Correctional Center (“Menard”).
Specifically, Plaintiff asserts an Eighth Amendment
deliberate indifference claim against Defendant Siddiqui for
allegedly delaying or denying him access to a special needs
permit, a cane or crutch, and a referral to a specialist for
treatment of progressive right-sided numbness associated with
a past brain injury. Defendant moved for summary judgment,
contending Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative
remedies prior to filing this lawsuit.
For her
Report, Judge Daly examined Plaintiff's emergency
grievances dated January 2, 2018 and April 15, 2018. She
found that the January 2, 2018 grievance did not exhaust
Plaintiff's administrative remedies because Plaintiff
submitted the grievance directly to the Administrative Review
Board ("ARB") instead of following procedure which
requires the grievance to be submitted to staff at Menard.
She also concluded the April 15, 2018 grievance did not
exhaust Plaintiff's remedies because Plaintiff failed to
appeal the grievance to the ARB.
Discussion
For his
objection, Plaintiff does not take issue with Judge
Daly's findings in the Report. Rather, he asserts that he
has written several grievances requesting to see a
neurologist or to have an M.R.I. performed.
When no
specific objections to a Report and Recommendation are made,
the Court need not conduct a de novo review of the
Report. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).
Instead, the Court reviews the Report and Recommendation for
clear error. Johnson v. Zema Systems Corp., 170 F.3d
734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999). The Court may “accept,
reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The
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 an
inmate 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). The Code governs the grievance and appeals
process available to prisoners. A prisoner may file a
grievance in the normal course which includes: (1) submitting
a grievance to a grievance officer; (2) the grievance
officer's findings and recommendations are reviewed by
the CAO; (3) the CAO renders a decision; (4) the CAO's
decision may then be appealed to the ARB in writing within 30
days. 20 ILCS §§ 504.830, 504.850(a).
Here,
it is apparent that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his
administrative remedies prior to filing this lawsuit. The
January 2, 2018 grievance was never submitted to Menard staff
for review even after the ARB directed Plaintiff to submit
the grievance in the normal manner. The April 2018 grievance
was submitted to the grievance officer and the CAO, but
Plaintiff did not appeal the CAO's decision to the ARB
prior to filing this lawsuit.
The
Court finds no clear error in Judge Daly's findings,
analysis and conclusions, and adopts her Report and
Recommendation in its entirety. Accordingly, Defendant
Siddiqui's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 28) and
Defendant Lawrence's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 24) are
GRANTED. This case is DISMISSED
without prejudice and the Clerk of Court is
DIRECTED to close this case.
IT
IS SO ORDERED.
---------