The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sue E. Myerscough, U.S. District Judge:
E-FILED Monday, 17 December, 2012 09:59:02 AM Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
Plaintiff filed this case pro se alleging claims of retaliation and excessive force, and inhumane conditions of confinement based on incidents at the Sangamon County Jail. Discovery closed in May 2012.
The supervisory Defendants- Defendants Williamson, Brents, Durr and Strayer-have filed a motion for summary judgment. The supervisory Defendants argue that Plaintiff has no evidence that they were personally involved in any of the alleged constitutional violations. Plaintiff retained counsel after the summary judgment motion was filed, and Plaintiff's counsel has filed a response.
After careful consideration of the motion for summary judgment, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has not pointed to admissible evidence which might allow a rational juror to conclude that Defendants Williamson, Brents, Durr, and Strayer were personally responsible for the alleged constitutional violations. Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment must be granted.
SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD
"The court shall grant summary judgment 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). A movant may demonstrate the absence of a material dispute through specific cites to admissible evidence, or by showing that the non-movant "cannot produce admissible evidence to support the [material] fact." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(B). If the movant clears this hurdle, the non-movant may not simply rest on his or her allegations in the complaint, but instead must point to admissible evidence in the record to show that a genuine dispute exists.
Id.; Harvey v. Town of Merrillville, 649 F.3d 526, 529 (7th Cir. 2011). "In a § 1983 case, the plaintiff bears the burden of proof on the constitutional deprivation that underlies the claim, and thus must come forward with sufficient evidence to create genuine issues of material fact to avoid summary judgment." McAllister v. Price, 615 F.3d 877, 881 (7th Cir. 2010).
At the summary judgment stage, evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the non-movant, with material factual disputes resolved in the non-movant's favor. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A genuine dispute of material fact exists when a reasonable juror could find for the non-movant. Id.
Pursuant to the Court's prior orders, this case proceeds on the following claims:
a) First Amendment claim of retaliation against Plaintiff for Plaintiff's exercise of his First Amendment rights;
b) Fourteenth Amendment due process claims based on the conditions of confinement at the Jail, the alleged humiliating strip search, the alleged nine-hour placement in a restraint chair without breaks, the alleged threats against Plaintiff, and the alleged intentional dissemination of the addresses and phone numbers of Plaintiff's family to other inmates; and,
c) Claim against Defendant Bill Smith that he used excessive force against Plaintiff in retaliation for ...