The opinion of the court was delivered by: Harold A. Baker United States District Judge
The claims in this case are:
1. Defendants Brown, Rains, Julie Bohler, Jerry Bohler, Trancoso, and Walker retaliated against the plaintiff for his former lawsuit.
2. Defendants Stokes, Osafo and Hazelwood retaliated against the plaintiff for a grievance he filed against Defendant Zeman.
3. Defendants Stokes, Osafo, Hazelwood, Birkey, Hunt, Zessin, Jerry Bohler, Trancoso, Walker and Wexford were deliberately indifferent to the plaintiff's serious medical condition.
(3/24/05 Case Management Order, d/e 9). The case is now before the court on summary judgment motions.
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 determines from the parties' submissions that the facts below are undisputed. Though the plaintiff disputes most of these facts in his responses with conclusory denials, he does not offer any evidence to support an inference that a dispute exists for a jury to decide. Much of the averments in his affidavit are conclusory allegations, inadmissible hearsay, and/ir without foundation or personal knowledge, and are therefore insufficient to create a disputed issue of material fact.
Undisputed Facts from the Motion for Summary Judgment by Defendants Osafo et al. (d/e 160)*fn1
1. Plaintiff was incarcerated at the Illinois River Correctional Center for the dates referred to in his Complaint.
2. Plaintiff had a knee brace which contained hinges at certain points in time while an inmate at the Illinois River Correctional Center. (Affidavits of Dr. Osafo and Dr. Hazelwoodewood).
3. In November of 2004, Plaintiff's hinged knee brace was replaced with a knee sleeve. (Affidavits of Dr. Osafo and Dr. Hazelwood).
4. Dr. Osafo was the Medical Director at the Illinois River Correctional Center for all dates referenced in the Plaintiff's Complaint.
5. The medical records reflect that Dr. Osafo personally examined Glenn Verser on June 30, 2002 and evaluated him for right knee pain from an old injury he alleged to have sustained in 1998. At that time, his examination was unremarkable and he was treated with non-steroidal anti-inflammatories. He was advised to return as needed. (Exhibit A, Exhibit 1, p. 26).
6. Mr. Verser was again seen by Dr. Osafo on September 18, 2003 regarding a request about getting a knee brace. At that time, Dr. Osafo examined the patient's knee and found it to be in satisfactory condition. (Exhibit A, Exhibit 1, p. 27).
7. On September 18, 2003, Dr. Osafo reviewed the Plaintiff's medical records, which indicated that he had previously been issued a knee brace, so Dr. Osafo issued one as well for a~~~~~ 575 six month period. (Exhibit A, Exhibit 1, p. 27)
8. Mr. Verser requested a low bunk permit on September 29, 2003. The staff physician (Dr. Hazelwood) saw Mr. Verser on October 14, 2003 for this evaluation. The low bunk permit was denied and the patient was once again treated with non-steroidal anti-inflammatories, as well as warm compresses as needed and range of motion exercises. (Exhibit A, Exhibit 1, pp. 28-29)
10. In Dr. Osafo's medical judgment, the treatment by him and Dr. Hazelwood was appropriate. It was also Dr. Osafo's medical opinion that Mr. Verser did not need a low bunk permit at that time. (Exhibit A)
11. Mr. Verser complained once again on October 22, 2003 requesting a low bunk permit.
Dr. Osafo evaluated him at that time. His medical findings were no different from those documented by Dr. Hazelwood on October 14, 2003. However, Dr. Osafo approved Mr. Verser's request for a low bunk permit for a one-year period. (Exhibit A, Exhibit 1, p. 30)
12. Dr. Osafo saw Mr. Verser again on March 22, 2004 during a hypertension clinic, at which time he requested a renewal of his knee brace. Dr. Osafo examined Mr. Verser's knee. Dr. Osafo's findings were unremarkable; however, Dr. Osafo renewed his knee brace request for six (6) months. (Exhibit A, Exhibit 1, pp. 31-32)
13. On April 17, 2004, Mr. Verser asked for another knee brace, indicating that the one he had received previously had lost its elasticity and requested that it be changed. (Exhibit A)
14. On May 8, 2004, Mr. Verser's knee brace was exchanged. (Exhibit A, Exhibit 1, p. 33)
15. On September 30, 2004, Dr. Osafo saw Mr. Verser, at which time Dr. Osafo renewed his request for a knee brace for six (6) months, as well as his low bunk permit for one year. Dr. Osafo examined his knee and found that his ...