The opinion of the court was delivered by: Reagan, District Judge
Plaintiff Brion Daniels ("Daniels") brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the above-named Defendants who Daniels claims violated his constitutional rights while he was incarcerated at the Pinckneyville Correctional Center. After the Court conducted its preliminary review of Daniels's complaint on May 14, 2007 (Doc. 16-3), five claims remained.
First, Daniels claims that, while he was incarcerated at the Pinckneyville Correctional Center ("PCC") in April 2004, January 2006, and March 2006, Defendants Audra Sue Ferrari Burns ("Ferrari"), John Evans ("Evans"), Steve Sroka ("Sroka"), Julius Flagg ("Flagg"), Roger Walker ("Walker"), Samuel Burns ("Burns"), M. Hartman ("Hartman"), Thomas Grace ("Grace"), and Carol McBride ("McBride) were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs in that they denied him his heart and hypertension medications.*fn1 Daniels alleges he was without medication for several days while he was held in segregation, and, as a result, he experienced a number of symptoms, including chest pains, headaches and blurred vision (Doc. 16, p. 3).
Second, Daniels contends that Defendants Evans, Hartman, Flagg and Meek further violated his constitutional rights by denying him soap and other hygiene materials. He claims that Defendant Evans refused to allow him to have any hygiene products for seven days in April 2004, and Defendant Hartman denied his request for free hygiene items even though he did not have any money in his trust fund account.
Third, Daniels maintains that Defendants Flagg and Meek ignored the grievances he filed about Defendants' failure to provide hygiene items, and, later, in retaliation for his grievances, Defendant Flagg ordered that Daniels receive only one bar of soap per month (Doc. 16, pp. 6-7).
Fourth, Daniels alleges that Defendants Laird, Alvis, Sroka, Townley and Burns denied him access to the courts by confiscating the legal papers he had prepared for federal court (Doc. 16, p. 12).
And finally, Daniels has brought retaliation claims against all Defendants. He submits that Defendant Ferarri denied him his medication because of a threatening letter he wrote to her. He contends that the remaining Defendants retaliated against him because he filed grievances and letters.
Defendants deny Daniels's allegations and filed motions for summary judgment Docs. 47, 57. Daniels chose not to respond to Defendants' motions, even though Defendants warned him that his failure to respond with evidence could result in a judgment against him and even though this Court ordered him to respond. See Docs. 48, 58, 60, 63.
II. Summary Judgment Standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c) states that summary judgment is proper only if the moving party can demonstrate "that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). See alsoRuffin-Thompkins v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., 422 F.3d 603, 607 (7th Cir. 2005); Black Agents & Brokers Agency Inc. v. Near North Ins. Brokerage, Inc., 409 F.3d 833, 836 (7th Cir. 2005). The burden is upon the moving party to establish that no material facts are in dispute; any doubt as to the existence of a genuine issue must be resolved against the moving party. Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 160 (1986); Ballance v. City of Springfield, 424 F.3d 614, 616 (7th Cir. 2004). Even if the facts are not in dispute, summary judgment is inappropriate when the information before the court reveals that "alternative inferences can be drawn from the available evidence." Spiegla v. Hull, 371 F.3d 928, 935 (7th Cir. 2004). In ruling on a summary judgment motion, this Court must construe the evidence and all inferences reasonably drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Tas Distribution Co., Inc. v. Cummins Engine Co., Inc., 491 F.3d 625, 630 (7th Cir. 2007); Reynolds v. Jamison, 488 F.3d 756, 764 (7th Cir. 2007). Thus, the undersigned Judge construes all facts and makes all reasonable inferences in favor of Daniels in ruling on the instant motion.
III. Daniels's Failure to Respond to Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment
As noted above, Daniels ignored both this Court's Order and Defendants' warnings. By doing so, Daniels has foregone his ...