The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael P. McCUSKEY Chief U.S. District Judge
Thursday, 01 March, 2012 04:29:22 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
This case is before the court for ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment (#39) filed by Defendant, Daniel Burris. The pro se Plaintiff, Charles W. Hoskins, has not filed a response to the Motion for Summary Judgment. This court has carefully considered Defendant's arguments and the documents filed. Following this careful and thorough consideration, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (#39) is GRANTED. In addition, Defendant's Petition for Attorneys' Fees (#35) is GRANTED and Plaintiff is ordered to pay Defendant's attorneys' fees in the amount of $406.50.
Plaintiff filed a pro se Complaint (#1) on March 17, 2010, alleging a variety of claims against multiple defendants. On July 22, 2010, this court conducted a merit review of Plaintiff's Complaint and found that Plaintiff could "proceed only on his claim of due process against the defendant, Daniel Burris." In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleged that the way Defendant conducted his disciplinary hearing violated his constitutional right to due process.
On November 29, 2011, Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (#39).
Defendant argued that he was entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff's claim because the undisputed facts showed that Plaintiff was given notice and an opportunity to be heard at his disciplinary hearing. Defendant stated that it was undisputed that Plaintiff received notice of the charge against him and had an opportunity to be heard at the disciplinary hearing conducted by Defendant on April 15, 2008. In support of the Motion for Summary Judgment, Defendant attached lengthy exhibits, including a transcript of Plaintiff's deposition, which was taken on August 15, 2011. The transcript shows that, during his deposition, Plaintiff testified that Defendant was an impartial officer when he presided over Plaintiff's disciplinary hearing. Plaintiff also testified that he did not present witnesses at the disciplinary hearing because he saw no reason to. He testified that he felt like he could ask questions of Defendant at the disciplinary hearing had he wanted to, but he did not ask any questions.
On November 30, 2011, a Notice (#41) was sent to Plaintiff by the clerk of this court. The Notice stated:
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a case-dispositive motion (such as a motion for summary judgment or motion for judgment on the pleadings) has been filed. See Fed.R.Civ.P.12(b)(6), Fed.R.Civ.P.56; Fed.R.Civ.P12(c). Please be advised that you have twenty-one (21) days from the date of filing to respond to the motion. If you do not respond, the motion, if appropriate, will be granted and the case will be terminated without a trial. See, generally, Lewis v. Faulkner, 689 F. 2d 100 (7th Cir. 1982); Timms v. Frank, 953 F. 2d 281 (7th Cir. 1992). Under the court's local rules, a motion is deemed to be uncontested if no opposing brief is filed. See L.R. CDIL 7.1(D)(2).
When a motion for summary judgment is made and properly supported, you must not simply rely upon the allegations made in your complaint. Rather, you must respond by affidavit(s) or as otherwise provided in Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a copy of which is attached. Your response must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial. If you do not submit affidavits or other documentary evidence contradicting the defendants' assertions, the defendants' statement of facts will be accepted as true for purposes of summary judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P 56(e) and L.R. 7.1(attached).
A copy of Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and a copy of Rule 7.1 of the Local Rules of the Central District of Illinois were attached to the Notice.
On December 2, 2011, a telephone status conference was held. This court allowed Plaintiff until December 30, 2011, to filed his Response. Plaintiff has not filed a Response to the Motion for Summary ...