The opinion of the court was delivered by: John A. Gorman United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff challenges his treatment during his incarceration in Knox County Jail from March 11, 2005, to April 19, 2005. He alleges he suffered excessive force, unconstitutional conditions of confinement, and an unconstitutional deprivation of his property. (6/13/05 Court Order).
Before the Court are Defendants' unopposed motions for summary judgment (d/e's 46, 49). The undisputed facts show that Plaintiff's claims have no factual merit. Accordingly, the motions will be granted and this case terminated.
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). 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).
The Court recounts the allegations for background and context. The Complaint alleges that, in March, 2005, Plaintiff was returned to the Knox County Jail after being sentenced in federal court. Defendant Morris, the Jail's administrator, allegedly put Plaintiff in the "hole" where Plaintiff remained until his transfer in April 2005.
On March 18, 2005, Defendant Inman allegedly sprayed Plaintiff with mace for no reason and took all Plaintiff's property. A nurse allegedly ordered Defendants to move Plaintiff out of the cell, because it was cold, plaintiff was sick, and Defendants were keeping him in the cell naked. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants kept him in the "hole" so they could hog tie him and torture him with no witnesses. They also allegedly threatened to assault him where no one could see. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant Inman chained Plaintiff and threw him in the shower for no reason.
Plaintiff has not responded to the summary judgment motions. The plaintiff was warned that "[u]nder the court's local rules, a motion is deemed to be uncontested if no opposing brief is filed." (d/e's 48, 51). The same notices warned the plaintiff that, "If you do not submit affidavits or other documentary evidence contradicting the defendants' assertions, the defendants' statement of facts will be accepted as true for purposes of summary judgment." Id.
The court has reviewed the defendants' proposed undisputed facts (d/e's 47, 50) and finds them well supported by their cites to the record. Accordingly, those undisputed facts are adopted and set forth below, essentially verbatim, to the extent relevant.
1. Defendant Richard Morris ("Morris") was employed by the County of Knox as the Jail Administrator at the Knox County Jail ("Jail") at the time of the events alleged in the Complaint (Complaint , p. 1).
2. Defendant Stewart Inman ("Inman") was employed by the County of Knox as a Deputy Sheriff/Corrections Officer at the Knox County Jail at the time of the events alleged in the Complaint. (Complaint , p. 1); Affidavit of Stewart Inman [Exhibit B], Paragraph 1.) 3. From September 17, 2004 to April 2005, Plaintiff was an inmate at the Jail. (Plaintiff's Deposition, pp. 9, 17).
4. On March 11, 2005, Plaintiff was taken to the federal court in Rock Island for sentencing.
5. While Plaintiff was at court on March 11, 2005, a shakedown was performed on Plaintiff's cell, and certain items of contraband were recovered. (Plaintiff's Deposition, pp. 64-66).
6. While Plaintiff was in the process of being transported to Federal Court on March 11, 2005, it was discovered that Plaintiff had candy with him. (Plaintiff's Deposition, p. 58).
He was also accused of yelling and being disrespectful in an incident report generated as a result of the incident. ...