Southard v. Wexford Medical, 3:17-cv-00839-JPG-RJD. (2018)
Court: District Court, S.D. Illinois
Number: infdco20180906a82
Visitors: 7
Filed: Sep. 05, 2018
Latest Update: Sep. 05, 2018
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER J. PHIL GILBERT , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendations ("Report") (ECF No. 58) of Magistrate Judge Reona J. Daly with regard to the defendants' partial motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 37). The Court may accept, reject, or modify—in whole or in part— the findings or recommendations of the magistrate judge in a report and recommendation. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3). The Court must review de novo the portions of the rep
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER J. PHIL GILBERT , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendations ("Report") (ECF No. 58) of Magistrate Judge Reona J. Daly with regard to the defendants' partial motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 37). The Court may accept, reject, or modify—in whole or in part— the findings or recommendations of the magistrate judge in a report and recommendation. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3). The Court must review de novo the portions of the repo..
More
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
J. PHIL GILBERT, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendations ("Report") (ECF No. 58) of Magistrate Judge Reona J. Daly with regard to the defendants' partial motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 37). The Court may accept, reject, or modify—in whole or in part— the findings or recommendations of the magistrate judge in a report and recommendation. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3). The Court must review de novo the portions of the report to which objections are made. Id. "If no objection or only partial objection is made, the district court judge reviews those unobjected portions for clear error." Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999).
Here, the Court has received no objection to the Report. The Court has reviewed the entire file and finds that the Report is not clearly erroneous. Accordingly, the Court:
• ADOPTS the Report in its entirety (ECF No. 58);
• GRANTS the defendants' partial motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 37); and
• NARROWS the plaintiff's claims as follows:
Count 1: Eighth Amendment claim against Wexford Medical, for deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's need for treatment and specialist care for his injured face and nose in 2015;
Count 2: Eighth Amendment claim against Dr. Shaw, for deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's need for treatment and specialist care for his injured face and nose in 2015.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
