The opinion of the court was delivered by: Harold A. Baker United States District Judge
This cause is before the court for consideration of the defendant's motions for summary judgment. [d/e 66, 74]
The plaintiff, Kevin Earl Johnson, originally brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 alleging that his constitutional rights were violated at the Pontiac Correctional Center by eight defendants. On July 12, 1995 the court granted a motion for summary judgment for most of the named defendants. The court found the plaintiff had one surviving claim: that Defendant Dr. Funk was deliberately indifferent to the plaintiff's serious medical condition. See July 12, 1996 Court Order. The court instructed the defendant to file a well-supported motion for summary judgment.
The defendant filed a dispositive motion. However, the court found that this motion did not provide the proper documentation. The court instructed the defendant to file supplemental affidavits in support of his claims. See February 9, 2006 Court Order. The court gave the defendant a deadline to file the information and allowed the plaintiff additional time to file a response. The parties were advised that no further continuances would be granted.
The defendant filed a revised motion for summary judgment on February 21, 2006. This motion does not supplement the original dispositive motion, but replaces it. Therefore, the court will dismiss the initial motion for summary judgment. [d/e 66]
The plaintiff was again advised the deadline for filing his response. The deadline has now passed and the plaintiff has failed to respond. The court will consider the defendant's motion for summary judgment without further input from the plaintiff.
The plaintiff was an inmate at the Pontiac Correctional Center at the time of the allegations in his complaint. The plaintiff's complaint states that in March of 2002, he fell and injured his right eye. He lost 85% of the vision in his eye, but an eye doctor told him if he was careful not to re-injure his eye, he should regain the vision. This original eye injury is not the basis of this lawsuit. (Comp, p. 8) Instead, the plaintiff is claiming his eye was re-injured later in 2002, and he did not receive care from Dr. Funk.
The plaintiff says his security classification was upgraded in September 2002 and it including nightly security checks at 2:00 a.m. The plaintiff says the repeated waking caused him to have insomnia which lead to migraine headaches which he claims re-injured his right eye. The plaintiff says his vision began to deteriorate again. The plaintiff in his complaint claims he wrote repeated letters to Defendant Funk asking for medical care, but his requests were denied.
Dr. Funk states neither he nor anyone else in the healthcare unit play any role in determining an inmate's security status. Dr. Funk says he has reviewed the plaintiff's medical records and there is no correspondence between the doctor and the plaintiff concerning his claimed re-injury. Dr. Funk says he is not aware of any other communications he had with the plaintiff concerning his claimed medical condition and "[a]t no time did I provide direct medical care to Kevin Johnson for any complaints regarding this claimed injury." (Def. Memo, Funk Depo, p. 1) Lastly, Dr. Funk says he was never made aware in any other way of plaintiff's claimed problems with his eye during the time alleged in the plaintiff's complaint.
The entry of summary judgment is proper only "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(C). A "material fact" is one that "might affect the outcome of the suit." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A dispute is genuine only if a reasonable jury could find for the nonmoving party. Id.
A party moving for summary judgment initially has the burden of showing the absence of any genuine dispute of material fact based on the evidence. Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 153 (1970); Schroeder v. Barth, Inc., 969 F.2d 421, 423 (7th Cir. 1992). A nonmoving party cannot rest on its pleadings, but must demonstrate that there is admissible evidence that will support its position. Tolle v. Carroll Touch, Inc., 23 F.3d 174, 178 (7th Cir. 1994). The evidence and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom are viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255. Nonetheless, "(s)ummary ...