UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
December 6, 2006
GERALD KAIN, PLAINTIFF,
MARC LEVINSON, TIM LAWRENCE, AMY RAY, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Harold A. Baker U.S. District Judge
The plaintiff has not responded to Defendants' Summary Judgment motions. Defendants' proposed facts, 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 show that the plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, and that Defendants' Levinson and Ray bear no personal responsibility for the alleged failure to treat the plaintiff's alleged mental condition. Accordingly, summary judgment is mandated for Defendants on the merits.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants' summary judgment motions are granted (d/e 36, 38). 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.