# Towns v. Menard Correctional Center

> District Court, S.D. Illinois · October 17, 2019

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10151076

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, S.D. Illinois
- **Decided:** October 17, 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/10151076

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
DWAYNE TOWNS, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) Case No. 18-cv-1455-SMY-RJD
)
MENARD CORRECTIONAL CENTER, 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. 31) recommending the granting of Defendant
Siddiqui's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 28) and Defendant Lawrence's Motion to
Dismiss (Doc. 24). Plaintiff filed an objection (Doc. 34)1. For the following reasons, Judge
Daly’s Report is ADOPTED.
Background
Plaintiff Dwayne Towns, an inmate in the custody of the Illinois Department of
Corrections (“IDOC”), filed this lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that his
constitutional rights were violated while he was incarcerated at Menard Correctional Center
(“Menard”). Specifically, Plaintiff asserts an Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim
against Defendant Siddiqui for allegedly delaying or denying him access to a special needs
permit, a cane or crutch, and a referral to a specialist for treatment of progressive right-sided

1The Court will consider Plaintiff's objection although it was filed three weeks after the response period ended.
numbness associated with a past brain injury. Defendant moved for summary judgment,
contending Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing this lawsuit.
For her Report, Judge Daly examined Plaintiff's emergency grievances dated January 2,
2018 and April 15, 2018. She found that the January 2, 2018 grievance did not exhaust
Plaintiff’s administrative remedies because Plaintiff submitted the grievance directly to the

Administrative Review Board ("ARB") instead of following procedure which requires the
grievance to be submitted to staff at Menard. She also concluded the April 15, 2018 grievance
did not exhaust Plaintiff’s remedies because Plaintiff failed to appeal the grievance to the ARB.
Discussion
For his objection, Plaintiff does not take issue with Judge Daly's findings in the Report.
Rather, he asserts that he has written several grievances requesting to see a neurologist or to have
an M.R.I. performed.
When no specific objections to a Report and Recommendation are made, the Court need
not conduct a de novo review of the Report. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Instead,

the Court reviews the Report and Recommendation for clear error. Johnson v. Zema Systems
Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999). The Court may “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).
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 decision may then be appealed to the ARB in writing within 30
days. 20 ILCS §§ 504.830, 504.850(a).
Here, it is apparent that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to
filing this lawsuit. The January 2, 2018 grievance was never submitted to Menard staff for
review even after the ARB directed Plaintiff to submit the grievance in the normal manner. The
April 2018 grievance was submitted to the grievance officer and the CAO, but Plaintiff did not
appeal the CAO's decision to the ARB prior to filing this lawsuit.
The Court finds no clear error in Judge Daly’s findings, analysis and conclusions, and
adopts her Report and Recommendation in its entirety. Accordingly, Defendant Siddiqui's
Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 28) and Defendant Lawrence's Motion to Dismiss (Doc.
24) are GRANTED. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice and the Clerk of Court is
DIRECTED to close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: October 17, 2019
eww Ke. Goll
STACI M. YANDLE
United States District Judge

Page 3 of 3

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10151076. Public record. Not legal advice.