# Sago v. Lashbrook

> District Court, S.D. Illinois · September 11, 2019

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10150791

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, S.D. Illinois
- **Decided:** September 11, 2019
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10150791

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
BRANDON SAGO, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) Case No. 18-cv-160-SMY-RJD
)
JACQUELINE LASHBROOK,et al., )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
YANDLE, District Judge:
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation ("Report") of United
States Magistrate Judge Reona J. Daly (Doc. 85), recommending the motions for summary
judgment on the issue of exhaustion (Docs. 66and67)be granted. Plaintiff filed a timely objection
(Doc. 86). For the following reasons, Judge Daly's Report is ADOPTED.
Background
PlaintiffBrandon Sago, 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 he has been denied medical treatment for injuries resulting from an old gunshot
wound in his left arm. Defendants move for summary judgment, asserting Plaintiff failed to
exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing this lawsuit.
Judge Daly held an evidentiary hearing on Defendants' motions pursuant to Pavey v.
Conley, 544 F.3d 739 (7th Cir. 2008) and subsequently issued the Report currently before the
Court, setting forth the nature of the evidence presented by both sides on the issue of exhaustion,
the applicable law,and the requirements of the administrative process.
Judge Daly examined Plaintiff's grievances dated February 23, 2017, March 22, 2017,
April 22, 2017, September 12, 2017, November 20, 2017, and December 24, 2017. She found that
Plaintiff failed to timely submit each grievance to the Administrative Review Board after the
grievance was denied by the Grievance Officer and Chief Administrative Officer ("CAO") or

failed to complete the grievance process in accordance with The Illinois Administrative Code (the
"Code"). Accordingly, Judge Daly concluded that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative
remedies prior to filing this lawsuit.
Discussion
Where timely objections are filed, this Court must undertake a de novoreview 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., quoting12 Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal
Practice and Procedure 3076.8, at p. 55 (1st Ed. 1973) (1992 Pocket Part).
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 decisionmay then be appealed to the ARBin writing within 30 days. 20 ILCS§§ 504.830,
504.850(a).
For his objection, Plaintiff asserts that he timely appealed each of his grievances. He
contends that Menard employees intentionally process inmate mail slowly to prevent inmates from
timely completing the grievance process. Plaintiff's first three emergency grievances (February

23, 2017, March 22, 2017, and April 22, 2017) were received by the ARB on May 15, 2017. Judge
Daly found Plaintiff's testimony regarding the grievances questionable and concluded that Plaintiff
mailed these grievances to the ARB sometime after April 22, 2017 – rendering the February and
March grievances untimely. Judges are clearly in a position to assess a witness’s credibility
because they have the opportunity “to observe the verbal and nonverbal behavior of the witnesses
. . . [including their] reactions and responses to the interrogatories, their facial expressions,
attitudes, tone of voice, eye contact, posture and body movements.” Kraushaar v. Flanigan, 45
F.3d 1040, 1052-53 (7th Cir. 1995). The Court finds no reason in the record to second-guess Judge
Daly’s credibility determinations. Goffman v. Gross, 59 F.3d 668, 671 (7th Cir. 1995) (“The

district court is not required to conduct another hearing to review the magistrate judge’s findings
or credibility determinations”).
As to Plaintiff's remaining four emergency grievances, it is apparent that Plaintiff simply
failed to complete the grievance process after the CAO determined that an emergency was not
substantiated and directed Plaintiff to submit his grievance in the normal manner. There is nothing
in the record to support Plaintiff's assertion that Menard officials prevented him from timely
submitting his grievances.
The Court finds no clear error in Judge Daly’s findings, analysis and conclusions, and
adopts her Report and Recommendation in its entirety. Accordingly, the motions for summary
judgment filed by the Defendants (Docs. 67, 69) are GRANTED. This case is DISMISSED
without prejudice and the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: September 11, 2019 al
STACI M. YANDLE
United States District Judge

Page 4 of 4

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10150791. Public record. Not legal advice.