Kentes West v. Scott Ebers, Robert W. Rhoades, Zackary Connor, Ryan Ramsey, Kevin Tilley, Sylvester Lambert, Jessica Armbruster, Mark Hanks, Morgan Giacomo, and Warden of Menard Correctional Center

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS KENTES WEST, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Case No. 23-cv-224-SMY ) SCOTT EBERS, ) ROBERT W. RHOADES, ) ZACKARY CONNOR, ) RYAN RAMSEY, KEVIN TILLEY, ) SYLVESTER LAMBERT, ) JESSICA ARMBRUSTER, ) MARK HANKS, MORGAN GIACOMO, ) and WARDEN OF MENARD ) CORRECTIONAL CENTER ) ) Defendants. ) MEMORANDUM AND ORDER YANDLE, Chief District Judge: This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“Report”) of United States Magistrate Judge Mark A. Beatty (Doc. 94), recommending the granting of the Joint Motion for Pavey Hearing (Doc. 72) and the denial of the motions for summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies filed by Defendants (Docs. 56, 61). No objections have been filed to the Report. For the following reasons, Judge Beatty’s Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED.

When neither timely nor 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 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).

Here, Judge Beatty thoroughly discussed and supported his conclusions that the grievance process was unavailable to Plaintiff and, therefore, Plaintiff was not required to exhaust the institutional grievance process before filing this lawsuit. The Court finds no clear error in Judge Beatty’s findings, analysis and conclusions, and adopts his Report and Recommendation in its entirety.

Accordingly, the Joint Motion for Pavey Hearin (Doc. 72) is GRANTED. Defendants’ motions for summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies (Docs. 56, 61) are DENIED. Plaintiffs claims in Counts 1 and 2 against Defendants shall proceed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 4, 2026 STACI M. YANDLE Chief United States District Judge Page 2 of 2