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. 53), recommending that the Court grant the
Motion for Summary Judgment for Failure to Exhaust
Administrative Remedies filed by Defendant Moldenhauer (Doc.
35) and the Motion for Summary Judgment for Failure to
Exhaust Administrative Remedies filed by Defendant Lashbrook
(Doc. 39). Plaintiff filed a timely objection (Doc.
For the following reasons, Judge Daly's Report is
Gerald Gaddy, an inmate in the custody of the Illinois
Department of Corrections (“IDOC”), filed this
lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming his
constitutional rights were violated while he was incarcerated
at Menard Correctional Center (“Menard”).
Specifically, Plaintiff alleges Defendants Lashbrook,
Moldenhauer, Shah, Siddiqui, and Wexford Health Services were
deliberately indifferent to his chronic pain conditions and
head injury, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Defendants
Moldenhauer and Lashbrook move for summary judgment,
asserting that Plaintiff failed to submit a grievance naming
or identifying them prior to filing this lawsuit.
Daly determined that an evidentiary hearing pursuant to
Pavey v. Conley, 544 F.3d 739 (7th Cir. 2008) was
unnecessary, and instead ruled on the evidence set forth in
the parties' briefing. Judge Daly examined the grievances
dated January 11, 2018 and May 15, 2018 and determined that,
although Plaintiff grieved the medical treatment he received
from Nurse Practitioner Zimmer, Dr. Shah, and Dr. Siddiqui,
there was no evidence in the record that Plaintiff exhausted
his administrative remedies as to his claims against either
Moldenhauer and Lashbrook.
timely objections are filed, this 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); see also Govas v. Chalmers, 965 F.2d 298,
301 (7th Cir. 1992). The Court may accept, reject or modify
the magistrate judge's recommended decision. Id.
In making this determination, the Court must look at all of
the evidence contained in the record and give fresh
consideration to those issues to which specific objections
have been made. Id., quoting 12 Charles
Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure
3076.8, at p. 55 (1st Ed. 1973) (1992 Pocket Part).
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).
does not deny that he failed to exhaust his administrative
remedies prior to filing suit. Rather, he argues that
Lashbrook, as Warden and Chief Administrative Officer of
Menard, should have been on notice of the denial of
adequate medical treatment when she denied both of his
medical grievances. But pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1997e(a), Plaintiff was required to file a grievance putting
IDOC on notice of the alleged inappropriate action by
Lashbrook. As such, it is apparent that Plaintiff did not
fully exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing
Court finds no clear error in Judge Daly's findings,
analysis and conclusions, and adopts her Report and
Recommendation in its entirety. Accordingly, Plaintiffs'
claims against Defendants Lashbrook and Moldenhauer are
DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to
exhaust administrative remedies. Plaintiff shall proceed on
his claims against Defendants Shah, Siddiqui, and Wexford.
IS SO ORDERED.
 Plaintiff has not objected to Judge
Daly's recommendation that the Court grant Defendant
Moldenhauer's Motion. Where no timely objections to the
Report and Recommendation are made, this Court need not
conduct a de novo review of the Report and
Recommendation. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140
(1985). Instead, the Court should review the Report for clear
error. Johnson v. Zema Systems Corp.,170 F.3d 734,
739 (7th Cir. 1999). The Court finds no clear error with
respect to Judge Daly's conclusion that Plaintiff failed