The opinion of the court was delivered by: Harold A. Baker United States District Judge
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND FINAL ORDER
On December 1, 2005, this case was called for trial before the court. The plaintiff, Jason Wanick, appeared personally accompanied by his pro bono, court appointed attorney, Michael Costello, Esq.*fn1 The defendants, Kevin Johnson and John Cearlock, appeared personally accompanied by their attorneys, Eric J. Rieckenberg and Christopher Higgerson, Assistant Illinois Attorneys General.
This is an action for money damages under the provisions of 42 U.S.C. §1983. The plaintiff, who was an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections, (IDOC), claims that the defendants, who were employees of the IDOC at the times complained of in this case, violated his rights under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Specifically, the plaintiff claims that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical condition while he was in custody and their indifference was a proximate cause of his claimed damages.
The court, having heard the evidence and the remarks of counsel, makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.
The parties have stipulated to the following facts that are uncontested and the court accepts the stipulations as evidence in the case.
1. On the evening of August 10, 2001, at approximately 10:45 p.m., plaintiff fell from his bunk at the Graham Correctional Center and injured his nose.
2. Plaintiff was treated following his fall by Registered Nurse Kevin Johnson, who was then in the employ of the Illinois Department of Corrections. Nurse Johnson examined the plaintiff, and provided first aid. A minor laceration was noted, but no nasal deformity, and plaintiff was instructed to report back to the Health Care Unit for sick-call if any difficulty was encountered later.
3. Nurse Johnson was the only medical provider to treat the plaintiff on the night of August 10, 2001.
4. Plaintiff was not seen by defendant John Cearlock on the night of August10, 2001.
5. Plaintiff filed a grievance on August 21, 2001, regarding the treatment he received following his August 10, 2001 injury.
6. Plaintiff's counselor, Donna Hoff, responded on August 23, 2001, noting that a copy of the grievance had been sent to defendant Cearlock for his response on that same date.
7. On September 5, 2001, plaintiff's counselor, Donna Hoff, wrote a report regarding plaintiff's grievance. That report indicated that defendant Cearlock's response to plaintiff s grievance was that his review of plaintiff's medical progress notes indicated that on August 10, 2001, plaintiff suffered a minor laceration to the nose, and nothing in plaintiff's medical progress notes indicated a broken nose. Per Counselor Hoff, defendant Cearlock further addressed plaintiff's grievance by stating that plaintiff should go to sick-call if he felt his nose was broken.
8. Plaintiff did not report back to the Health Care Unit for any follow-up related to his nasal injury until March 8, 2002. On that date, plaintiff was seen by Registered Nurse Diane Sanders, who noted that plaintiff denied having any trouble breathing. Nurse Sanders referred plaintiff to a doctor.
9. On March 28, 2002, plaintiff saw Dr. Siddiqui. At that time, some deformity of the nose was noted and the left nasal passage was found to be ...