The opinion of the court was delivered by: Harold A. Baker United States District Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the court is the defendants, Earl Helm and Robert Huston's unopposed summary judgment motion brought pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and Local Rule 7.1(D). Defendants move for an order entering summary judgment in favor of the defendants, Helm and Huston on the ground that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that they are entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. The defendants assert that the undisputed material facts, admissions of the Plaintiff and established facts in the case demand summary. Defendants further assert that the plaintiff has not alleged and can not show that the defendants personally engaged in any kind of conduct that deprived him of a federal or constitutional right as is necessary for a triable issue to exist in a case where the defendants are named in their individual capacities.
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.
Undisputed Material Facts
1. Defendants are being sued in their individual capacities only. (See the court's Text Order issued January 11, 2008)
2. Plaintiff was a pre-trial detainee at the Tazewell County Jail. (See Plaintiff's Complaint at p. 13, 17 of ECF Document )
3. Plaintiff requested to see a doctor at the Tazewell County Jail to address dental complaints. (See Plaintiff's Complaint at p. 13 of ECF Document )
4. A medical physician examined Plaintiff at the Tazewell County Jail. (See Plaintiff's Complaint at p. 13 of ECF Document )
5. A medical physician prescribed medication for Plaintiff. (See Plaintiff's Complaint at p. 13 of ECF Document )
6. Plaintiff has been examined by a nurse at the Tazewell County Jail. (See Plaintiff's Complaint at p. 13, 14, 16, 17 of ECF Document )
7. Plaintiff's complaints and request for medical care were forwarded to medical staff for review. (See Plaintiff's ...