The opinion of the court was delivered by: Harold A. Baker United States District Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the court is the Defendant, Joseph Williams's unopposed summary judgment motion .
Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 for alleged violations of his Eighth Amendment rights while he was at Pontiac Correctional Center. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant heard Inmate Charles Johnson threaten him on October 16, 2007, and that later that day, Defendant escorted Inmate Johnson to a holding cell, where Plaintiff and several other inmates were waiting to see the dentist. Plaintiff alleges that when Defendant opened the cell door, Defendant allowed Inmate Johnson to kick Plaintiff in the head. He further alleges that Defendant refused to get him medical care for his alleged injuries afterward.
Material Facts Claim to be Undisputed
1. At all times relevant to this lawsuit, Plaintiff was incarcerated at Pontiac Correctional Center ("Pontiac"). (Complaint.)
2. At all times relevant to this lawsuit, Defendant was employed as a correctional officer at Pontiac. (Affidavit of Joseph Williams, attached hereto as Ex. B, para. 1.)
3. At all times relevant to this lawsuit, Defendant acted under color of state law. (Complaint.)
4. On October 16, 2007, Defendant was assigned to 8 gallery on the 3-11 shift. (Ex. A, p. 9; Ex. B, para. 4.)
5. On October 16, 2007, Plaintiff was assigned to 6 gallery, which is directly below 8 gallery, in cell 648. (Ex. A, p. 17.)
6. Although Plaintiff alleges he did not get along with Inmate Charles Johnson, Plaintiff never complained to anyone about Inmate Johnson. (Ex. A, p. 13.)
7. Although Plaintiff alleges that Inmate Johnson told him he was going to "kick you (Plaintiff) in your shit," and that Plaintiff responded by saying "you're not going to touch me," while Defendant Williams was on the wing, Defendant Williams heard no such threat. (Ex. A, p. 20-1; Ex. B, para. 11-2)
8. Defendant did not hear any inmate threaten Plaintiff. (Ex. B, para. 12.)
9. Plaintiff has no evidence to the contrary. He merely surmises that Defendant "must have heard" the alleged threat because he told both ...