UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
December 6, 2006
PERCY CRAWFORD, PLAINTIFF,
SANGAMON COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEP'T ET AL., DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Harold A. Baker U.S. District Judge
The plaintiff has not responded to Defendants' Summary Judgment motion, though given an extension and warning to do so.
Defendants' summary judgment motion is thorough and well supported. Defendants' 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'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 show that the plaintiff suffered no constitutional deprivations while he was incarcerated at the Jail. Accordingly, summary judgment is mandated for Defendants on the merits. The court need not address Defendants' statute of limitations argument.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants' Summary Judgment Motion is granted (d/e 29). The Clerk of the court is directed to enter judgment in favor of Defendants and against the plaintiff pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. The case is terminated, parties are to bear their own costs.
Entered This 6th Day of December, 2006.
© 1992-2006 VersusLaw Inc.