# Osmundson

> District Court, C.D. Illinois · April 21, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11313878

## Case

- **Full name:** Shannon Smith v. Kurt Osmundson, et al.
- **Court:** District Court, C.D. Illinois
- **Decided:** April 21, 2026
- **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/11313878

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding exhaustion as to defendants not named in grievance when the prison was clearly on notice of the unnamed defendants who were involved

## Opinion text

IN THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
ROCK ISLAND DIVISION

SHANNON SMITH,
Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 4:25-cv-04130-JEH

KURT OSMUNDSON, et al.,
Defendants.

Order
This matter is now before the Court on Defendants’ Motion for Summary
Judgment on the Issue of Exhaustion. (Doc. 22). For the reasons stated below,
Defendants’ Motion is DENIED.
I
Plaintiff Shannon Smith, proceeding pro se, filed this lawsuit under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 alleging Defendants Dr. Kurt Osmundson and Samantha Shinn were
deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth
Amendment while he was incarcerated at Hill Correctional Center (“Hill”).
Specifically, Plaintiff alleges he was bitten by a spider on July 11, 2024, and
developed an infection. Due to a delay in medical care, Plaintiff allegedly suffered
nerve damage and a permanent hole in his leg from the infection. (Docs. 8, 9).
On March 5, 2026, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on the
Issue of Exhaustion. (Doc. 22). The same day, the Clerk issued a Notice warning
Plaintiff that if he failed to respond within 21 days, the Motion would be granted,
if appropriate, and the case would be terminated without a trial. (Doc. 23).
Plaintiff’s response to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment was due on
March 26, 2026. To date, Plaintiff has not responded to Defendants’ Motion or
requested additional time to do so. Under Local Rule 7.1(D)(2)(b)(6), “[a] failure to
respond to any numbered fact will be deemed an admission of the fact.” Id.
II
During the relevant period, Plaintiff was an inmate at Hill. Defendant Dr.
Osmundson was a physician. Defendant Shinn was a nurse practitioner.
Defendants provided medical care to the inmates at Hill.
Plaintiff alleges he was bitten by a spider in his cell on July 11, 2024. (Doc. 8
at p. 3). On July 13, 2024, Plaintiff allegedly submitted a medical request form and
was called to the Health Care Unit (“HCU”) for sick call to be examined by Nurse
Stauffer. Id. Defendant Dr. Osmundson instructed Nurse Stauffer to inform
Plaintiff to return if his condition worsened. Id.
On July 17, 2024, Plaintiff was allegedly experiencing increased swelling,
pus discharge, and pain with a numb tingling sensation up and down his right
thigh and submitted a sick call request. Id. On July 20, 2024, an unidentified
individual allegedly examined Plaintiff and advised him to continue taking
ibuprofen and keep the bite area clean. Id. at p. 4.
On July 22, 2024, an unidentified nurse noted white/green discharge
coming from the wound and the area was warm to the touch. Id. Plaintiff was
prescribed Naproxen for the pain and an antibiotic for the infection. Id.
On July 30, 2024, Defendant Shinn allegedly examined Plaintiff and
diagnosed him with a cellulite abscess infection, prescribed a course of antibiotic
injections, and admitted him to the infirmary. Id. On August 2, 2024, Nurse
Practitioner Kramer discharged Plaintiff from the infirmary. Id.
Plaintiff submitted one relevant grievance on July 22, 2024. (Doc. 22-1 at pp.
16-17). Grievance K29-0714-1522E alleges Plaintiff did not receive proper medical
care for his spider bite due to medical refusing to see him, inability to see a doctor,
and improper treatment by the nurse practitioner. Id.
On July 30, 2024, the Grievance Officer denied Plaintiff’s grievance because
Defendant Shinn confirmed that Plaintiff received treatment for the spider bite and
was prescribed antibiotics for the infection. Id. at p. 15. On August 2, 2024, the
Chief Administrative Officer (“CAO”) concurred with the Grievance Officer’s
finding. Id.
Plaintiff appealed the grievance to the Administrative Review Board
(“ARB”) on August 7, 2024. Id. On September 12, 2024, the ARB determined the
grievance was properly denied, as the Grievance Officer found the issue was
appropriately addressed by the facility administration. Id. at p. 14.
III
A
Summary judgment is appropriate “if the movant shows that there is no
genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as
a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317,
322-23 (1986). In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, “[t]he court has one
task and one task only: to decide, based on the evidence of record, whether there
is any material dispute of fact that requires a trial.” Waldridge v. Am. Hoechst Corp.,
24 F.3d 918, 920 (7th Cir. 1994). In making this determination, the court must
construe the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and
draw all reasonable inferences in favor of that party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). “Inferences that are supported by only speculation or
conjecture will not defeat a summary judgment motion.” McDonald v. Vill. of
Winnetka, 371 F.3d 992, 1001 (7th Cir. 2004). In order to successfully oppose a
motion for summary judgment, a plaintiff must do more than raise a
“‘metaphysical doubt’ as to the material facts, and instead must present definite,
competent evidence to rebut the motion.” Michael v. St. Joseph Cnty., 259 F.3d 842,
845 (7th Cir. 2001) (internal citation omitted).
B
“The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA) requires prisoners with
complaints about prison conditions to exhaust available grievance procedures
before bringing suit in federal court.” Perttu v. Richards, 605 U.S. 460, 464 (2025).
Parties “have a right to a jury trial on PLRA exhaustion when that issue is
intertwined with the merits of a claim . . . .” Id. at 469. Here, the exhaustion issue
is not intertwined with the merits of Plaintiff’s claims. There is no jury issue
regarding exhaustion.
“To exhaust remedies, a prisoner must file complaints and appeals in the
place, and at the time, the prison’s administrative rules require.” Pozo v.
McCaughtry, 286 F.3d 1022, 1025 (7th Cir. 2002). Plaintiff was required to follow
the grievance procedures described in the regulations provided by the Illinois
Department of Corrections (“IDOC”). 20 Ill. Admin. Code § 504.800, et seq.
According to the grievance procedure in Illinois, offenders in the custody of the
IDOC must first try to resolve their issues through their counselor. § 504.810. If the
issue persists, the offender may file a grievance addressed to the grievance officer
within sixty days after the incident was discovered. Id.
The grievance must contain factual details, including what happened,
when, where, and the name of each person who is the subject of or who is
otherwise involved in the complaint. § 504.810(c). If the offender cannot name
specific individuals, the offender “must include as much descriptive information
about the individual as possible.” Id.
The grievance officer will then make a report of findings and
recommendations in writing to the CAO within two months, “when reasonably
feasible under the circumstances.” §§ 504.810(a), 504.830(e). The CAO will advise
the offender of the decision. Id.
If the offender is not satisfied with the outcome, he may appeal to the
Director of the Illinois Department of Corrections. The appeal must be received by
the ARB within thirty days after the date of the CAO’s decision. § 504.850. The
ARB will submit a report to the Director, who will review the findings and make
a final determination within six months after receiving it “when reasonably
feasible under the circumstances.” § 504.850(e).
An inmate who fails to properly take every step of the administrative
process has failed to exhaust his remedies. Chambers v. Sood, 956 F.3d 979, 983 (7th
Cir. 2020). The Seventh Circuit takes a strict compliance approach to exhaustion,
requiring inmates to follow all grievance rules established by the correctional
authority. Dole v. Chandler, 438 F.3d 804, 809 (7th Cir. 2006). A lawsuit filed by an
inmate before he exhausted his administrative remedies must be dismissed
because the court lacks the discretion to resolve the claim on the merits. Perez v.
Wis. Dep’t of Corr., 182 F.3d 532, 535 (7th Cir. 1999). Because exhaustion is an
affirmative defense, the defendants shoulder the burden of proof. Hernandez v. Lee,
128 F.4th 866, 869 (7th Cir. 2025).
IV
Defendants Osmundson and Shinn argue they are entitled to summary
judgment because Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies.
Defendants assert Grievance K29-0714-1522E fails to mention Dr. Osmundson and
Shinn and only refers to the conduct of a “NP.” (Doc. 22 at p. 8).
It is generally recognized that a grievance must contain sufficient
information so as to alert the prison to “the nature of the wrong for which redress
is sought.” Strong v. David, 297 F.3d 646, 650 (7th Cir. 2002). A plaintiff who does
not provide this necessary information fails to exhaust. See Ambrose v. Godinez, 510
F. App'x 470, 472 (7th Cir. 2013) (plaintiff failed to exhaust where he did not
identify defendants “by name or inference”); see also Woods v. Schmeltz, No. 13-
1477, 2014 WL 3490569, at *4 (C.D. Ill. July 14, 2014) (plaintiff must provide enough
information for “the prison to determine which of its employees were involved in
the incidents . . . .”).
Here, Grievance K29-0714-1522E requested proper medical treatment for a
spider bite Plaintiff suffered on July 11, 2024. (Doc. 22-1 at pp. 16-17). Plaintiff
stated he submitted a sick call request, was examined by nurses, and provided
with medical care. Id. at p. 17. Plaintiff alleged one of the nurses informed him the
spider bite was an emergency and recommended he “see a doctor ASAP.” Id.
Plaintiff stated the infection worsened, the bite discharged green pus, and his
“whole thigh and leg went numb all the way down to [his] toes.” Id. On July 22,
2024, Plaintiff stated he saw the “nurse practitioner,” who informed him the bite
looked infected and swollen, gave him Clindamycin and Naproxen, and told him
she would give him a shot in about a week if the bite was still infected. Id. Plaintiff
stated the nurse practitioner also “told [him] to hang on because [he] still [had] an
appointment to see the doctor on Aug. 9th.” Id. Although Plaintiff did not
specifically identify Defendants Dr. Osmundson and Shinn by name in his
grievance, Plaintiff referred to the “doctor” and the “nurse practitioner.” Id.
The Grievance Officer’s response indicates he spoke with Defendant Shinn
about the medical care Plaintiff received for his spider bite. Id. at p. 15. The
Grievance Officer’s response states:
Nurse Practitioner Shinn states, “I initially prescribed this patient
Bactrim (which is a typical antibiotic you prescribe for a skin
infection) and followed up with him after finishing it. The infection
had not improved with the Clindamycin when I followed up with
him and so I started him on Clindamycin for 10 days. I followed up
with him again today and it’s still infected, and after speaking with
Dr. Osmundson, I put him into the infirmary, he will be getting daily
Rocephin shots for 3 days, and continuing Clindamycin. He is also
acute which means he will be seen by a provider 3x weekly, and
nursing every shift.
Id. Plaintiff’s grievance contained enough information to allow the Grievance
Officer to investigate the grievance and speak with Defendant Shinn about
Plaintiff’s medical treatment. See Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 217 (2007) (“[N]othing
in the [PLRA] imposes a ‘name all defendants’ requirement.”). The purpose of the
PLRA is to give the facility an opportunity to correct the issue before litigation.
Jackson v. Esser, 105 F.4th 948, 960 (7th Cir. 2024) (citing Schillinger v. Kiley, 954 F.3d
990, 996 (7th Cir. 2020)). “[P]risoners must provide some identifying information
about the accused individuals. In other words, a grievance must contain enough
information about who caused the grieved of problem so that a prison can
properly investigate and resolve grievances.” Jackson, 105 F.4th at 960 (internal
citations and quotations omitted); see also Maddox v. Love, 655 F.3d 709, 722 (7th
Cir. 2011) (finding exhaustion as to defendants not named in grievance when the
prison was clearly on notice of the unnamed defendants who were involved). The
Court finds Plaintiff’s grievance provided sufficient notice.
After receiving the Grievance Officer’s response, there is no dispute that
Plaintiff properly completed the next steps of the grievance process. Plaintiff
submitted a timely appeal to the ARB on August 7, 2024. (Doc. 22-1 at p. 15). He
received the ARB’s response on September 12, 2024, and filed his initial Complaint
on July 15, 2025. Id. at p. 14; Doc. 1.
The Court finds Plaintiff exhausted his administrative remedies under the
PLRA. See Turley, 729 F.3d at 650 (explaining that “once a prison has received
notice of, and an opportunity to correct, a problem, the prisoner has satisfied the
purpose of the exhaustion requirement”). Defendants’ Motion for Summary
Judgment is DENIED.
V
For the reasons stated, supra:
(1) Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [22] is DENIED.
(2) The deadlines in the Court's Scheduling Order [20] remain in place.
Discovery closes on August 3, 2026, and dispositive motions are due by September
3, 2026.
It is so ordered.

Entered: April 21, 2026

s/Jonathan E. Hawley
U.S. District Judge

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11313878. Public record. Not legal advice.