The opinion of the court was delivered by: Harold A. Baker United States District Judge
Before the court are the defendants' summary judgment motion  pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(b) and the plaintiff's response thereto .
Summary judgment "shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P.56(c); Outlaw v. Newkirk, 259 F.3d 833, 837 (7th Cir. 2001), citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986); Herman v. National Broadcasting Co., Inc., 744 F.2d 604, 607 (7th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1028 (1985). 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). Further, 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). Credibility questions "defeat summary judgment only '[w]here an issue as to a material fact cannot be resolved without observation of the demeanor of witnesses in order to evaluate their credibility.'" Outlaw, 259 F.3d at 838, citing Advisory Committee Notes, 1963 Amendment to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(other citations omitted).
Fed. Rule Civ. Pro. Rule 56(c) "mandates the entry of summary judgment, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial." Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322. "Where the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party there is no 'genuine' issue for trial." Mechnig v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 864 F.2d 1359 (7th Cir. 1988). A "metaphysical doubt" will not suffice. Matsushita Elec. Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). Disputed facts are material only if they might affect the outcome of the suit. First Ind. Bank v. Baker, 957 F.2d 506, 507-08 (7th Cir. 1992). The mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, *247-248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2510 (1986).
The plaintiff, is an inmate in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and currently housed at Robinson Correctional Center. He has brought before this court a complaint filed under 42 U.S.C. §1983. The plaintiff claims that on April 21, 2001, defendant Correctional Officer Gary Jones made sexually suggestive remarks to the plaintiff while he "placed his right hand on the plaintiff's left shoulder, in a restraining manner....." (complaint, p. 4). The plaintiff then claims that defendant Jones "intentionally stepped on plaintiff's left foot and walked away laughing" and did not adequately address his complaints of defendant Jones' conduct (complaint, p. 4). The plaintiff then alleges that on April 26, 2001 defendant Correctional Lieutenant Phil Huber laughed at him when he was being interviewed by Internal Affairs regarding the incident (complaint, p. 5). The plaintiff further alleges that on September 26, 2001 defendant Jones stated to him "You're gay! Do you like boys? All Hispanics are gay" (complaint, p. 5). Last, the plaintiff alleges that he was again verbally harassed by defendant Jones on October 1, October 17, November 7, and November 11, 2001 (complaint, p. 5). The plaintiff claims that the above conduct by the defendants violated his 8th and 14th Amendment rights. The plaintiff seeks fees and costs, compensatory and punitive damages in the amount of $1,000,000, and for the court to order Taylorville Correctional Center Staff to attend sensitivity and minority rights classes (complaint, p. 5).
Undisputed Material Facts
1. The only alleged physical contact between the plaintiff and any of the defendants at any time relevant to plaintiff's complaint occurred on April 21, 2001, when plaintiff alleges that defendant Jones made sexually suggestive remarks to the plaintiff while he "placed his right hand on the plaintiff's left shoulder, in a restraining manner....." and "intentionally stepped on plaintiff's left foot." See plaintiff's complaint, p. 4, and deposition of the plaintiff, p. 21, lines 8-21, defendants' exhibit A .
2. Plaintiff has claimed no physical injury as a result of the alleged April 21, 2001 injury. See plaintiff's complaint, p. 4-5
3. The only individuals who were present during the April 21, 2001 incident were fellow inmates who were working out with the plaintiff when defendant Jones committed the alleged acts described above. See plaintiff's complaint, p. 4, and deposition of the plaintiff, p. 5 lines 19-20, p. 6. lines 1-6  attached as defendants' exhibit A.
4. During defendant David Freeman's tenure as Warden of Taylorville Correctional Center, from August 1, 2001 to February 15, 2004, defendant Freeman routinely delegated the task of reviewing inmate grievances, and facility grievance officer responses to inmate grievances, to subordinates. Defendant Freeman did not personally investigate the circumstances surrounding the plaintiff's grievances of the conduct of defendant Jones. See affidavit of David Freeman, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as defendants' exhibit B, and plaintiff's complaint, exhibits 10, 13, 16*fn1 .
5. During defendant Donald Snyder's tenure as Director of the Illinois Department of Corrections, defendant Snyder routinely delegated the task of reviewing inmate grievances, and Administrative Review Board responses to inmate grievances, to subordinates. Defendant Snyder did not personally investigate the circumstances surrounding the plaintiff's grievances of the conduct of defendant Jones. See plaintiff's deposition, p. 28, lines 10-16 ...