Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Robert Wayne Bennett v. Mark R. Doran

March 30, 2012

ROBERT WAYNE BENNETT, PLAINTIFF,
v.
MARK R. DORAN, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael P. McCUSKEY U.S. District Judge

E-FILED Friday, 30 March, 2012 02:04:32 PM Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

OPINION

This case is before the court for ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment (#89) filed by Defendant Lisa Oakley ("Oakley"), and the Motion for Summary Judgment (#94) filed by Defendant Judy Bender ("Bender"). This court has carefully reviewed the arguments and supporting documents filed by the parties. Following this careful and thorough review, Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment (#89, #94) are GRANTED.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On December 23, 2009, Plaintiff filed his initial Complaint (#1). After this court held a merit review hearing on February 3, 2010, Plaintiff was allowed to proceed on his claim of indifference to his serious medical needs and inhumane conditions of confinement and was granted leave to amend his complaint to add Defendants Oakley and Bender. On March 15, 2010, Plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint (#8). With respect to Defendants Oakley and Bender, Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (#8) alleged that in their role as medical providers, they were indifferent to his serious medical needs by failing to provide prescription drugs in a timely manner.

On June 7, 2011, Defendant Oakley filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (#89). Defendant Oakley's Motion listed thirty-eight undisputed material facts and argued that she was entitled to summary judgment because: (1) Plaintiff did not suffer from an objectively serious medical need; and (2) Oakley was not deliberately indifferent to a serious medical need. On June 8, 2011, a Notice (#90) was sent to Plaintiff. 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).

Additionally, a copy of Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and a copy of Local Rule 7.1 was attached to the Notice sent to Plaintiff. On June 27, 2011, Plaintiff filed a five-page Response (#92), arguing that although Defendant Oakley did provide him with medical care and order him medicine, she was deliberately indifferent by failing to reorder his prescriptions in a timely manner. Plaintiff did not include any sworn statements in his Response nor did he attach any affidavits. Additionally, Plaintiff's Response did not comply with Rule 56 or Local Rule 7.1(D)(2).

On October 17, 2011, Defendant Bender filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (#94). Defendant Bender's Motion listed sixteen undisputed material facts and argued that she was entitled to summary judgment because: (1) Plaintiff did not suffer from an objectively serious medical need; and (2) Bender was not deliberately indifferent to a serious medical need. On October 17, 2011, a Notice (#95) was sent to Plaintiff, which contained the exact same information as Notice (#90). On November 7, 2011, Plaintiff requested an extension of time to respond to the Motion for Summary Judgment (#94), which was granted by this court.

The deadline for Plaintiff's response was January 6, 2012. Plaintiff did not file a response by the deadline, and in fact, has not filed any response even though over three months have passed since the January 6, 2012 deadline.

FACTS*fn1

Plaintiff was incarcerated in Ford County Jail beginning on September 17, 2009. At the time of his incarceration, Plaintiff had been prescribed certain medication, including Clonazepam (anxiety), Vicodin ES (back pain), Tramadol (pain reliever) and Trazodone (depression). After his period of incarceration began, Plaintiff filed written complaints with the Ford County Sheriff's Office ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.