The opinion of the court was delivered by: James E. Shadid United States District Judge
E-FILED Wednesday, 21 September, 2011 09:10:04 AM Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Before the court is Defendant Damewood's unopposed summary judgment motion . Plaintiff filed his Complaint on March 31, 2009, alleging that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs at Hill Correctional Center beginning in June 2008. Damewood is the only remaining defendant.
Summary judgment should be granted "if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). 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.
"If a party . . . fails to properly address another party's assertion of fact as required by Rule 56(c), the court may . . . grant summary judgment if the motion and supporting materials -- including the facts considered undisputed -- show that the movant is entitled to it." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). 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(c). "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). Further, "[t]he plaintiff cannot merely allege the existence of a factual dispute to defeat summary judgment .. Instead, he must supply evidence sufficient to allow a jury to render a verdict in his favor." Basith v. Cook County, 241 F.3d 919, 926 (7th Cir. 2001). Specifically, the non-moving party "must present sufficient evidence to show the existence of each element of its case on which it will bear the burden at trial." Filipovic v. K&R Express Systems, Inc., 176 F.3d 390, 390 (7th Cir. 1999). Failure by the non-movant to meet all of the above requirements subjects him to summary judgment on his claims.
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(c)(4) (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. It is also well settled that "conclusory allegations and self-serving affidavits, if not supported by the record, will not preclude summary judgment. Keri v. Barod of Trustees of Purdue University, 458 F.3d 620, 628 (7th Cir.2006)(citing Haywood v. N. Am. Van Lines, Inc., 121 F.3d 1066, 1071 (7th Cir.1997).
Undisputed Material Facts*fn1
1. Plaintiff is an inmate previously incarcerated at Hill Correctional Center (Doc. 1), but is now incarcerated at Cook County Jail. (Doc. 101).
2. Plaintiff filed his Complaint on March 31, 2009, complaining of deliberate indifference to medical needs at Hill Correctional Center from June 2008 to present.
3. Plaintiff's claims of deliberate indifference to serious medical needs related to injuries sustained to his right shoulder on October 28, 2007, while Plaintiff was being arrested in Cook County. (Exhibit A, Plaintiff's Dep at 13, 24).
4. Plaintiff spent about thirty days at Cook County. (Plaintiff's Dep at 15). Plaintiff was then taken to Stateville Correctional Center. (Plaintiff's Dep at 16).
5. Plaintiff stayed at Stateville Correctional Center for eleven months, and was then transferred to Hill Correctional Center. (Plaintiff's Dep at 17).
6. Upon arriving at Hill Correctional Center, Plaintiff went through a medical evaluation with a nurse. (Plaintiff's Dep at 18).
7. The nurse told Plaintiff he would see a doctor, and Plaintiff did later see a doctor that evaluated his shoulder and wrist. (Plaintiff's Dep at 19, 20).
8. The doctor ordered an X-ray. (Plaintiff's Dep at 21). Plaintiff then went back to the doctor, and the doctor prescribed Motrin. (Plaintiff's Dep at 23).
9. Plaintiff was then sent to an outside physician, who looked at Plaintiff's shoulder and prescribed a ...