The opinion of the court was delivered by: Harold A. Baker
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the court is the Defendants', Guy Pierce, Stephen Mote, Alton Angus, Maribeth O'Connell, Rick Orr and Roger E. Walker, Jr., unopposed summary judgment motion  filed pursuant to Rule56(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Summary judgment "should be rendered if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Any discrepancies in the factual record should be evaluated in the non-movant's favor. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986) (citing Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 158-59 (1970)). The party moving for summary judgment must show the lack of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). "Only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248.
"Summary judgment is the 'put up or shut up' moment in a lawsuit, when a party must show what evidence it has that would convince a trier of fact to accept its version of events. Johnson v. Cambridge Indus., Inc., 325 F.3d 892, 901 (7th Cir. 2000). A party opposing summary judgment bears the burden to respond, not simply by resting on its own pleading but by "set[ting] out specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial." See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). In order to be a "genuine" issue, there must be more than "some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts." Matsushita Elec. Ind. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). "If [the non-movant] does not [meet his burden], summary judgment should, if appropriate, be entered against [the non-movant]." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e).
Affidavits must be based on the personal knowledge of the affiant and "set out facts that would be admissible in evidence." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e) (emphasis added). Personal knowledge may include inferences and opinions drawn from those facts. Visser v. Packer Eng. Assoc., Inc., 924 F.2d 655, 659 (7th Cir. 1991). "But the inferences and opinions must be grounded in observation or other first-hand personal experience. They must not be based on flights of fancy, speculations, hunches, intuitions or rumors remote from that experience." Visser, 924 F.2d at 659.
Plaintiff is an inmate currently incarcerated within the Illinois Department of Corrections. On March 16, 2006, Plaintiff filed a civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 regarding alleged violations of his constitutional rights that occurred at Pontiac Correctional Center. Plaintiff claims that Defendants Walker, Pierce, O'Connell, and Orr were deliberately indifferent to serious medical needs, namely his problems with chronic constipation. Plaintiff further claims that Defendant Angus was deliberately indifferent to his medical needs, namely his mental health issues. Finally, Plaintiff contends that Defendant Angus and O'Connell retaliated against him in violation of his First Amendment rights. Defendants deny that they were deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff's serious medical needs. Defendants Walker, Pierce, and Mote contend that they lacked sufficient personal involvement to support a finding of liability for any constitutional deprivations allegedly suffered by the Plaintiff. Defendants Angus and O'Connell further assert Plaintiff has no evidence to support his claims of retaliation. Defendants believe that summary judgment should be granted.
Undisputed Material Facts
1. Plaintiff was an inmate incarcerated at Pontiac Correctional Center for all dates referred to in his Complaint.
2. On June 17, 2002, Plaintiff made his first complaints to Pontiac Correctional Center's medical staff regarding his problems with chronic constipation. From June 2002, until he was transferred in January of 2006, Plaintiff was treated by medical staff 59 times for complaints of constipation. Plaintiff was routinely given over-the-counter laxatives and advised to increase his water and fiber intake. (Defendants' Exhibit A, Attached Documents to Affidavit of Margaret Brian, pgs. 1-127).
3. By Plaintiff's own admission, he received over 150 treatments of protocol medication, Milk of Magnesia, and has been taking over-the-counter laxatives since 2001. (Defendants' Exhibit I, Plaintiff's Deposition, pg. 28, 30).
4. Plaintiff's requests made to med-techs to be seen by doctors for his constipation problems were in an attempt to be seen by an outside specialist. (Defendants' Exhibit I, 28-29).
5. At no time did any doctor provide the Plaintiff with any treatment for his constipation other than over-the-counter laxatives. (Defendants' Exhibit I, pg. 29).
6. On April 15, 2004, Plaintiff was examined by Defendant O'Connell pursuant to a treatment protocol for constipation. Pursuant to the protocol, Plaintiff was given two doses of Milk of Magnesia, encouraged to increase fluid intake, increase his physical activity, and his consumption of fruits and vegetables. Based upon the guidelines of the protocol, Defendant O'Connell did not refer Plaintiff to be seen by a doctor. (Defendants' Exhibit A, pg. 71).
7. On April 15, 2004, Plaintiff filed a grievance regarding Defendant O'Connell's refusal to refer Plaintiff to be seen by a doctor. (Defendants' Exhibit B, Plaintiff's Exhibit A attached to Complaint).
8. On April 21, 2204, Plaintiff filed a grievance regarding Defendant O'Connell's refusal to refer Plaintiff to be seen by a doctor. (Defendants' Exhibit B).
9. On April 22, 2004, Plaintiff filed a grievance regarding Defendant O'Connell's refusal to refer Plaintiff to be seen by a doctor. Plaintiff indicated that Defendant O'Connell offered to provide him with protocol ...