Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Davis v. Winters

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS


December 5, 2006

CHARLES DAVIS, PLAINTIFF,
v.
WARDEN WINTERS ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Harold A. Baker U.S. District Judge

Order

The plaintiff has not responded to Defendants' partial motion for summary judgment motion. Defendants' proposed facts, which are supported by cites to the record, 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's 29, 38; 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)).

Defendants' facts rule out any reasonable inference of personal responsibility on the part of Defendants Lindorff-Mathes, Winters and Drawve regarding the plaintiff's excessive force claim. The facts also rule out any inference by Defendants Winters, Lindorff-Mathes or Drawve of deliberate indifference to the plaintiff's serious medical needs. The other defendants will remain in on both claims because an inference arises, if they used excessive force as alleged by the plaintiff, that they were deliberately indifferent to the plaintiff's need for medical attention after beating him.

The court notes that the plaintiff is apparently on parole and has not filed a change of address, or anything else since March 2006. The plaintiff will be directed to show cause why his case should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with this court's order directing prompt notice of change of address.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

1) Defendants' partial motion for summary judgment is granted in part (d/e 66). Summary judgment is granted to Defendants Winters, Drawve and Lindorff-Mathes, who are dismissed from the case. The motion is otherwise denied.

2) By December 18, 2006, the plaintiff is directed to show cause why this case should not be dismissed, with prejudice, for failing to comply with this court's order for immediate notification of any change in address (d/e 8, Scheduling Order) and for lack of prosecution.

Entered This 5th Day of December, 2006.

20061205

© 1992-2006 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.