The opinion of the court was delivered by: James E. Shadid Chief United States District Judge
E-FILED Friday, 30 March, 2012 02:07:16 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
ORDER ON MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
The Defendant's have filed Motions for Summary Judgment. They argue lack of deliberate indifference, failure to exhaust administrative remedies and qualified immunity. The Motions are granted, as to deliberate indifference, for the reasons set forth below. As such, the issues of failure to exhaust and qualified immunity need not be addressed.
Plaintiff, Freddie Falconer, #B64044, is an inmate with the Illinois Department of Corrections, currently incarcerated at Menard Correctional Center. The allegations in Plaintiff's complaint arise out of his time at Pontiac Correctional Center.
Plaintiff asserts a violation of his Eighth Amendment Rights. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical condition. Plaintiff claims that he did not receive proper treatment for his asthma. Defendants assert that Plaintiff did receive proper medical treatment and that they were not indifferent to Plaintiff's serious medical condition.
Plaintiff arrived at Pontiac Correctional Center on September 23, 2009. Plaintiff received an intake exam at Pontiac Correctional Center on September 23, 2009. During that intake exam, it was noted that Plaintiff had asthma and was prescribed Albuteral.
Plaintiff claims he did not receive adequate medical treatment between the dates of October 23, 2009 and November 10, 2009. On October 24, 2009, Plaintiff was again seen by medical personnel. He was seen by Nurse J. Friell. During his October 24, 2009, medical visit, Plaintiff was prescribed an inhaler and ordered to attend the asthma clinic by Nurse J. Friel.
On November 3, 2009, Defendant Cation made a note in Plaintiff's medical chart that Plaintiff would like to be seen for shortness of breath. On November 10, 2009, Plaintiff was seen in the Health Care Unit by Dr. Schaeffer for sick call. Plaintiff complained of shortness of breath but indications showed that his lungs were clear. Plaintiff was ordered to follow up with the asthma clinic. Defendant Cation was present at this visit.
Plaintiff spoke to Defendant Simmons twice on October 24, 2009. On at least one of those occasions a med tech was present.
On October 25, 2009, Plaintiff wrote an emergency grievance which was returned to him as not being an emergency on November 2, 2009. That emergency grievance was signed by a designee of Defendant Pierce. Plaintiff had no further contact with Defendant Pierce.
SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD
Summary judgment shall be granted "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). The Court must construe the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and draw all justifiable inferences in favor of that party. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). If the evidence, however, is "merely colorable, or is not significantly probative or merely raises 'some metaphysical doubt as the material facts,' summary judgment may be granted." Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 249-50. Overall, "[s]ummary judgment is appropriate if, on the record as a whole, a rational trier of fact could not find for the non-moving party." Durkin v. Equifax Check Services, 406 F.3d 410, 414 (7th Cir. 2005) (citing Turner v. J.V.D.B. & Assocs., Inc., 3 ...