The opinion of the court was delivered by: Harold A. Baker United States District Court
Before the court are the defendants, Shaw and Cation's summary judgment motion  and the plaintiff's response thereto . The defendants move for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("FRCP") and CDIL-LR 7.1.
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 filed his Amended Complaint against Shaw and Cation, as well as other defendants, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983. Amended Complaint, at page 1. With respect to Shaw and Cation, the Plaintiff alleges deliberate indifference to a serious medical need in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Amended Complaint, ¶¶21and 22. Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges that his request for medication to treat his pain from arthritis was denied for several days, that Shaw and Cation were notified of this denial on July 4, 2003, but were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. Amended Complaint, ¶¶21and 22. The Plaintiff further alleges that Shaw violated his rights, under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, in that the Plaintiff was disciplined, allegedly by Shaw in retaliation for the Plaintiff flooding his cell. Amended Complaint, ¶22.
UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS
1. Doug Brown is employed as a medical technician or CMT at Pontiac Correctional Center ("Pontiac"). Amended Complaint, ¶6; Defendants Brady and Brown's Answer and Affirmative Defenses to the Plaintiff's Complaint (herein "Answer"), ¶6.
2. Christopher Brady is a medical technician or CMT at Pontiac. Amended Complaint, ¶5; Answer, ¶5.
3. Richard Cation is a medical technician or CMT at Pontiac. Amended Complaint, ¶7; Answer, ¶7.
4. Cletus Shaw is a correctional lieutenant at Pontiac. Amended Complaint, ¶9; Answer, ¶8.
5. Dr. Funk was the medical director at Pontiac. Amended Complaint, ¶4; Answer, ¶4.
6. The Plaintiff, Andre Winston, No. N-73132, is an inmate at Pontiac. Amended Complaint, ¶3; Answer, ¶3.
7. The Plaintiff has arthritis. Amended Complaint, ¶12; Answer, ¶8.
8. The Plaintiff had arthritis prior to his arrival at Pontiac. Transcript of the Deposition of Andre Winston ("Plaintiff's Dep.") which is attached as Exhibit 1 , at 28, lns 22-24.
9. Prior to the Plaintiff coming to Pontiac, when the Plaintiff was at Hill Correctional Center in Galesburg, Illinois ("Galesburg"), his arthritis was treated with Motrin. Plaintiff's Dep. at 31, lns 2-4.
10. The Plaintiff arrived at Pontiac on October 16, 2002. Plaintiff's Dep. at 6, lns. 10-13.
11. The Plaintiff does not have any problems with exercise, and he tries to work out every day. Plaintiff's Dep. at 13, lns. 16-19.
12. When he first came to Pontiac, the Plaintiff was seen by a nurse and he told her about his ...