The opinion
FIONR T THHEE U SNOIUTTEHDE SRTNA TDEISS TDRIISCTTR OICFT I LCLOIUNROTIS
LUIS ROBLES,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 3:17-CV-953-NJR-GCS
ELIJAH SPILLER, KAREN CLARK,
JOHN WOLFE, KALE LIVELY,
CHRISTINE BROWN, and
KAREN JAIMET,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ROSENSTENGEL, Chief Judge:
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate
Judge Gilbert C. Sison (Doc. 57), which recommends the undersigned grant the Motion
for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants Elijah Spiller, Karen Clark, John Wolfe, Kale
Lively, Christine Brown, and Karen Jaimet. (Doc. 54). For the reasons set forth below, the
adopts the Report and Recommendation and grants Defendants’ motion for summary
judgment.
Plaintiff Luis Robles, an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections housed
at Pinckneyville Correctional Center, brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for
deprivations of his constitutional rights. Robles asserts Defendants were deliberately
indifferent to his knee injury, in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and that Defendant
Wolfe discriminated against him on the basis of his racial/ethnic background, in violation
of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. (See Doc. 5).
On July 10, 2019, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on the merits
of Robles’s case. (Doc. 54). Although Defendants gave Robles proper notice of their
motion as required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Doc. 56), Robles never
responded to the motion.
On August 28, 2019, Magistrate Judge Gilbert C. Sison entered a Report and
Recommendation, recommending that the undersigned grant Defendants’ motion.
Under Local Rule 7.1(c), Judge Sison considered Robles’s failure to respond an admission
of the merits of the motion. Based on that admission, Judge Sison then concluded that
Defendant Wolfe did not violate Robles’s Fourteenth Amendment right to equal
protection (Count 1), Defendants Wolfe, Clark, Spiller, and Lively were not deliberately
indifferent to Robles’s medical needs (Count 2), and Defendant Brown was not
deliberately indifferent to Robles as she had no role in any delay in medical care
(Count 3). Accordingly, Judge Sison recommends that the undersigned grant summary
judgment to Defendants. Objections to the Report and Recommendation were due
September 16, 2019. 28 U.S.C. §636(b); SDIL-LR 73.1(b). 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). Where neither timely nor specific
objections to the Report and Recommendation are made, however, this Court need not
conduct de novo review of the Report and Recommendation. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S.
140 (1985). Instead, the Court should 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 carefully reviewed Judge
Sison’s Report and Recommendation for clear error. Following this review, the Court
agrees with his findings, analysis, and conclusions.
Having found no clear error, the Court ADOPTS Judge Sison’s Report and
Recommendation (Doc. 57). The Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants
Brown, Clark, Jaimet, Lively, Spiller and Wolfe (Doc. 54) is GRANTED. Plaintiff Luis
Robles shall recover nothing, and the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment
accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: October 22, 2019
Thee Moet?
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL |
Chief U.S. District Judge
Page 3 of 3