The opinion of the court was delivered by: Harold A. Baker United States District Judge
Order Granting Summary Judgment
The claims in this case are:
1) The defendants violated the plaintiff's 14th Amendment procedural due process rights by failing to give him notice of and an opportunity to appear at his disciplinary hearing on June 23, 2003.
2) The conditions the plaintiff endured in segregation in Pontiac Correctional Center violated his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. The plaintiff alleges that he did not receive sufficient quantities of food, allegedly losing 18 pounds.
Before the Court is the defendants' motion for summary judgment. Despite being given an extension, the plaintiff has never responded. The defendants' undisputed facts are therefore accepted as true.*fn1
Summary Judgment Standard
A party moving for summary judgment must show, from the "pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, . . ." that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the "moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Outlaw v. Newkirk, 259 F.3d 833, 837 (7th Cir. 2001), citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986);Fed. R. Civ. P.56(c). This burden can be satisfied by "'showing'--that is, pointing out to the district court--that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case." Celotex, 477 U.S. at 325. If such a showing is made, the burden shifts to the non-movant to "set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e); Outlaw, 259 F.3d at 837. 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). "Where the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party there is no 'genuine' issue for trial." Mechnig v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 864 F.2d 1359 (7th Cir. 1988). "Summary judgment is not a discretionary remedy. If the plaintiff lacks enough evidence, summary judgment must be granted." Jones v. Johnson, 26 F.3d 727, 728 (7th Cir. 1994).
1. Plaintiff was an inmate with the Illinois Department of Corrections, identified with the Department of Corrections number B79519. (Complaint at 1, ¶ 1.)
2. Defendant Roger E. Walker Jr. is the Director of the Illinois Department of Corrections. (Complaint at 2, ¶ 1.)
3. During the time period relevant to Plaintiff's Complaint, Defendant Stephen
D. Mote was the Warden of Pontiac Correctional Center. Complaint at 1, ¶ 3.
4. Defendant Dave Lingle is employed at Pontiac Correctional Center, and served on the Adjustment Committee at Pontiac on June 23, 2003. (Complaint at 1, ¶ 4; Defendants' Exhibit 2, Adjustment Committee Final Summary Report from hearing held June 23, 2003.)
5. Defendant William Myers is employed at Pontiac Correctional Center. (Complaint at 1, ¶ 5.)
6. Defendant Larry Kurfman is a Correctional Lieutenant employed at Western Illinois Correctional Center. (Complaint at 1, ¶ 2.)
7. On June 17, 2003, Plaintiff was incarcerated at Western Illinois Correctional Center. (Defendants' Exhibit 1, Deposition of Malcolm Jackson taken December 16, 2005 ("Dep."), at 5, lines 9-21.)
8. While Plaintiff was in the R-4 foyer on June 17, 2003, he was instructed by Officer Kleinlein to leave the wing. (Dep. at 10, lines 7-16; Complaint at 4, ¶ 4.)
9. Plaintiff did not leave the wing at that time. (Defendants' Exhibit 1, Dep. at 10, lines 7-16; ...