# Linton v. Godinez

> District Court, S.D. Illinois · September 6, 2019

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10150896

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, S.D. Illinois
- **Decided:** September 6, 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/10150896

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

TITUS LINTON,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 3:16-CV-492-NJR-GCS

ANGELA CRAIN,

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ROSENSTENGEL, Chief Judge:
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate
Judge Gilbert C. Sison, which recommends the undersigned grant the Motion for
Summary Judgment filed by Defendant Angela Crain. (Doc. 63).
In this lawsuit, filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiff Titus Linton alleges
Crain falsified statements about his medical care and failed to provide sufficient care
commensurate to his medical needs, in violation of the Eighth Amendment (Doc. 11). On
March 29, 2018, Crain filed a motion for summary judgment arguing she was not
deliberately indifferent to Linton’s medical needs and did not violate his Eighth
Amendment rights (Doc. 45). Linton timely filed a response in opposition (Doc. 48).
On August 13, 2019, Judge Sison entered the Report and Recommendation
currently before the Court (Doc. 63). Judge Sison recommends granting Crain’s motion
for summary judgment because there is insufficient evidence to allow a reasonable jury
to conclude that Crain acted with deliberate indifference to Linton’s serious medical
needs. Furthermore, because Crain did not violate Linton’s clearly established
constitutional rights, Judge Sison also recommends that the undersigned find she is
entitled to qualified immunity. Objections to the Report and Recommendation were due
August 30, 2019. No objections were filed.
Where 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); Harper v. City of Chicago Heights, 824 F. Supp. 786, 788 (N.D. Ill. 1993); see also
Govas v. Chalmers, 965 F.2d 298, 301 (7th Cir. 1992). But, where neither timely nor specific
objections to the Report and Recommendation are made, this Court should only review
the Report and Recommendation for clear error. Johnson v. Zema Systems Corp., 170 F.3d
734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999). The Court may then “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).
While de novo review is not required here, the Court has reviewed the evidence
and Judge Sison’s Report and Recommendation for clear error. Following this review, the
Court agrees with his findings, analysis, and conclusions. Accordingly, the Court
ADOPTS Judge Sison’s Report and Recommendation in its entirety (Doc. 63), and
GRANTS the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant Angela Crain (Doc. 45).
As a result, Linton’s pending Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 52) is
DENIED as moot. This action is DISMISSED with prejudice, and the Clerk of Court is
DIRECTED to enter judgment accordingly and close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: September 6, 2019 Nesp IM osnitg!
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL |
Chief U.S. District Judge

Pace 9 of 2

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10150896. Public record. Not legal advice.