The opinion of the court was delivered by: Harold A. Baker United States District Judge
This cause is before the court for consideration of the defendants motion for summary judgment. [d/e 22]
The plaintiff originally filed his complaint on August 11, 2008. On September 22, 2008, the court informed the plaintiff that he had adequately alleged that Defendants at Hill Correctional Center had been deliberately indifferent to his serious medical condition when they refused to provide him treatment for Hepatitis C. See September 22, 2008 Text Order. However, the plaintiff had failed to identify any defendants other than "various nurses" and "John Does." (Comp, p. 1) The plaintiff was given additional time to provide this information to the court. See September 22, 2008 Text Order.
The plaintiff responded by providing the court with a copy of a grievance filed at Big Muddy Correctional Center in September of 2008 complaining about medical care. The court explained that there were several potential problems with the plaintiff's claims including improper venue, a statute of limitations issue and a potential failure to exhaust administrative remedies. See November 19, 2008 Order.
The court then spelled out five questions the plaintiff had to answer and gave the plaintiff additional time to comply. The plaintiff responded by filing an amended complaint and the court conducted a merit review. The plaintiff has one surviving claim before this court: Wexford Health Source was deliberately indifferent to the plaintiff's serious medical condition when it refused to provide treatment for Hepatitis C. The claim is against Wexford in its official capacity.
The defendant has filed a motion for summary judgment alleging that the plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as required before filing this lawsuit. [d/e 22] The plaintiff twice asked for additional time to file a response which was granted. See January 21, 2010 Text Order; February 25, 2010. However, the plaintiff was advised that if he failed to respond to the March 12, 2010 deadline, the defendants motion would be considered without further input from the plaintiff. February 25, 2010 Text Order.
The following facts are taken from an affidavit provided by the defendant it its motion for summary judgment:
Terri Anderson states that she is the Manager of the Office of Inmate Issues/Administrative Review Board (herein ARB). As part of her duties she reviews inmate grievances and is familiar with the business records of the ARB. (Def. Memo, And. Aff, p. 1).
Anderson says she has reviewed the records of the ARB for any grievances filed by the plaintiff regarding his medical treatment for Hepatitis C during the relevant time frame he was housed at Hill Correctional Center. Anderson states there were no grievances received from the plaintiff.
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 ...