Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Silas v. McCarty

March 13, 2007

ELIJAH CURTIS SILAS, PLAINTIFF,
v.
ROBERT MCCARTY, ET AL, DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Harold A. Baker United States District Court

Before the court are the defendants, ROBERT MCCARTY, LYNN CAHILL-MASCHING, LYNNIA DAWSON, RONALD KENNEDY and RODNEY REED'sDR. NORMAN JOHNSON'S Summary Judgment Motion [70], Summary Judgment Motion [73] and the Plaintiff's response thereto.

Standard

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).

Background

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated his constitutional rights by showing deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs and maintaining inhumane conditions of confinement. Plaintiff has alleged that these violations of his rights occurred on the following dates: June 4, 2004; June 5, 2004; June 6, 2004; June 7, 2004; November 19, 2004; November 20, 2004, November 21, 2004, and November 22, 2004. Defendants have denied Plaintiff's allegations.

Undisputed Material Facts

1. Defendant ROBERT MCCARTY is the Sheriff of Livingston County (Amended Complaint [21], p. 1).

2. Defendant LYNN CAHILL-MASCHING is the Superintendent of the Livingston County Jail (Amended Complaint [21], p. 1).

3. Defendants LYNNIA DAWSON, RONALD KENNEDY and RODNEY REED are Correctional Officers at the Livingston County Jail (Amended Complaint [21], p. 2).

4. From June 4, 2004 to June 7, 2004, Plaintiff was a pre-trial detainee at the Livingston County Jail (Amended Complaint [21], Paragraph A). That detention ended on June 7, 2004, when Plaintiff posted bond and was released (Amended Complaint [21], Paragraph A).

5. Beginning on November 19, 2004, Plaintiff again was an inmate at the Livingston County Jail (Amended Complaint [21], Paragraph B).

6. On December 10, 2004, Plaintiff filed his original Complaint against Defendants in this matter, along with a Petition to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (Complaint [1]).

7. On January 28, 2005, Plaintiff submitted a written grievance to Defendants, raising seven complaints concerning the conditions of his confinement at the Livingston ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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