Filed: Jan. 15, 2019
Latest Update: Jan. 15, 2019
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION MICHAEL J. REAGAN , District Judge . This is a prisoner civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, filed by Timothy McCullough, Sr., an inmate at Shawnee Correctional Center, presenting claims of deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Specifically, two deliberate indifference claims survived threshold review, and five Defendants were served — Wilkie, Smoot, Benton, and Wexford (plus Dennison,
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION MICHAEL J. REAGAN , District Judge . This is a prisoner civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, filed by Timothy McCullough, Sr., an inmate at Shawnee Correctional Center, presenting claims of deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Specifically, two deliberate indifference claims survived threshold review, and five Defendants were served — Wilkie, Smoot, Benton, and Wexford (plus Dennison, w..
More
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
MICHAEL J. REAGAN, District Judge.
This is a prisoner civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, filed by Timothy McCullough, Sr., an inmate at Shawnee Correctional Center, presenting claims of deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Specifically, two deliberate indifference claims survived threshold review, and five Defendants were served — Wilkie, Smoot, Benton, and Wexford (plus Dennison, who remained in the case in his official capacity only for purposes of any potential injunctive relief; see Docs. 8, 20, 29).
Now before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction (Doc. 2). The Magistrate Judge assigned to the case (the Honorable Stephen C. Williams) ordered briefing on the motion (Doc. 27), reviewed extensive responses filed by Defendants (Docs. 31, 32), and submitted a Report and Recommendation to the undersigned District Judge on December 18, 2018 (R&R, Doc. 41).
The detailed R&R recommends that the undersigned deny Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction. The R&R plainly stated that any objection must be filed by January 7, 2019. That date passed over a week ago, with neither an objection nor a motion for extension of the objection deadline filed. Because no objection was lodged against the R&R, the undersigned need not conduct de novo review of the R&R. 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(C) (A judge shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Johnson v. Zema Systems Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 741 (7th Cir. 1999); Video Views Inc., v. Studio 21, Ltd., 797 F.2d 538 (7th Cir. 1986).
The Court ADOPTS in its entirety Judge Williams' R&R (Doc. 41) and DENIES Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction (Doc. 2). Finally bearing note is the fact that Judge Williams has retired, and a new Magistrate Judge has been assigned to this case — the Honorable Mark A. Beatty.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
