The opinion of the court was delivered by: Harold A. Baker United States District Judge
Before the court is the defendants unopposed summary judgment motion . The defendants are Jeremy Anderson, (sued as Anderson), Alton Angus (sued Angus), Donald Gish, Richard Joyal (sued as Joel) , Jerry Kottkamp (sued as Kottoncamp), Eric Neal (sued as Neal), and Robert Smithson (sued as Smithson).
Summary judgment "shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with 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); Outlaw v. Newkirk, 259 F.3d 833, 837 (7th Cir. 2001), citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986); Herman v. National Broadcasting Co., Inc., 744 F.2d 604, 607 (7th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1028 (1985). In determining whether factual issues exist, the court must view all the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Beraha v. Baxter Health Corp., 956 F.2d 1436, 1440 (7th Cir. 1992). Further, 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). Credibility questions "defeat summary judgment only '[w]here an issue as to a material fact cannot be resolved without observation of the demeanor of witnesses in order to evaluate their credibility.'" Outlaw, 259 F.3d at 838, citing Advisory Committee Notes, 1963 Amendment to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(other citations omitted). Fed. Rule Civ. Pro. Rule 56(c) "mandates the entry of summary judgment, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial." Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322. "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). A "metaphysical doubt" will not suffice. Matsushita Elec. Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). Disputed facts are material only if they might affect the outcome of the suit. First Ind. Bank v. Baker, 957 F.2d 506, 507-08 (7th Cir. 1992). The mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, *247-248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2510 (1986).
The plaintiff is currently incarcerated at Pontiac Correctional Center. He has filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The plaintiff claims that his Eighth Amendment right to be free of cruel and unusual punishment and his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process were violated on July 10, 2003. These claims are based on a cell extraction of the plaintiff which occurred on July 10, 2003.
Material Facts Claimed to be Undisputed
1. The plaintiff, Devon Snow is incarcerated in Pontiac Correctional Center (Pontiac), Pontiac, Illinois.
2. The incident that gave rise to this complaint, a cell extraction of the plaintiff, occurred on July 10, 2003. (Plaintiff's Complaint, p. 5 ¶ 6; See d/e ).
3. The defendant Smithson is a correctional officer and a member of the Tactical Team at Pontiac. (Plaintiff's Complaint, p. 1 ¶ 3).
4. The defendant Neal is a correctional officer and a member of the Tactical Team at Pontiac. (Plaintiff's Complaint, p. 1 ¶ 4).
5. The defendant Gish is a Lieutenant at Pontiac. (Plaintiff's Complaint, p. 1 ¶ 5).
6. The defendant Kottkamp is a Sergeant at Pontiac. (Plaintiff's Complaint, p. 2 ¶ 1).
7. The defendant Anderson is a correctional officer and a member of the Tactical Team at Pontiac. ...