UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
December 5, 2006
JAMES HOUSTON, PLAINTIFF,
DANIEL QUICK, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Harold A. Baker U.S. District Judge
The plaintiff has not responded to Defendant's summary judgment motion, which is thorough and well supported. Defendant's proposed facts are therefore accepted as true. See Central District of Illinois Local Rule 7.1(D)(2)(". . .[F]ailure to respond shall be deemed an admission of the motion [for summary judgment]."); Rule 56 Notice, d/e 30; Smith v. Lamz, 321 F.3d 680, 682-83 (7th Cir. 2003), quoting Bordelon v. Chicago Sch. Reform Bd. of Trustees, 233 F.3d 524, 529 (7th Cir. 2000)( . . . "[F]ailure to respond by the non-movant as mandated by the local rules results in an admission. . . ." (citation omitted)). Those facts rule out any reasonable inference that Defendant Quick was deliberately indifferent to any serious medical needs of the plaintiff. Accordingly, summary judgment is mandated for Defendant on the merits.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant's Summary Judgment Motion is granted (d/e 29). The Clerk of the court is directed to enter judgment in favor of Defendant and against the plaintiff pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. The case is terminated, parties are to bear their own costs.
Entered This 5th Day of December, 2006.
© 1992-2006 VersusLaw Inc.