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.

Smith v. Randle

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division

July 18, 2014

SENECA SMITH, Plaintiff,
v.
MICHAEL P. RANDLE et al., Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER

SARA L. ELLIS, District Judge.

Plaintiff Seneca Smith has brought this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983, alleging that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. Doctor Sylvia Mahone and Physician Assistant Diane Schwartz were previously dismissed because Smith failed to state a claim against these Defendants. This matter is before the Court for ruling on Defendant Andria Bacot's motion for summary judgment [167] and Group-Defendants Michael P. Randle, Nancy Pounovich, Anthony Harris, Nicholas Gowdy, Mindi Pierce, Ovidu Botan, Jeffery Sawyer, Andrew Ellis, Sandra Griffin, Marcus Hardy, Clay Roby, Amy Gomez, Kevin Doyle, Patrick Mulligan, Orthello Hamilton, James Rogers, and Darryl Carter's motion for summary judgment [173]. Because Smith has not established the subjective element of his deliberate claim as to Defendant Bacot, the Court grants Bacot's motion for summary judgment. Similarly, the Court finds that Smith has failed to demonstrate that the non-medical Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs and the Court grants their motion for summary judgment as well.

BACKGROUND

I. Compliance with Local Rule 56.1

Defendants filed statements of uncontested material facts pursuant to Local Rule 56.1. Defendants also provided Smith "Notice to Pro Se Litigant Opposing Motion for Summary Judgment, " as required by circuit precedent. Those notices clearly explained the requirements of the Local Rules and warned Smith that a party's failure to controvert the facts as set forth in the moving party's statement results in those facts being deemed admitted. See, e.g., Smith v. Lamz, 321 F.3d 680, 683 (7th Cir. 2003).

Local Rule 56.1(b) requires a party opposing a motion for summary judgment to file:

(3) a concise response to the movant's statement that shall contain (A) a response to each numbered paragraph in the moving party's statement, including, in the case of any disagreement, specific references to the affidavits, parts of the record, and other supporting materials relied upon, and
(B) a statement, consisting of short numbered paragraphs, of any additional facts that require denial of summary judgment, including references to the affidavits, parts of the record, and other supporting materials relied upon.

N.D. Ill. L.R. 56.1(b).

The district court may rigorously enforce compliance with Local Rule 56.1. See, e.g., Stevo v. Frasor, 662 F.3d 880, 886-87 (7th Cir. 2011) ("Because of the high volume of summary judgment motions and the benefits of clear presentation of relevant evidence and law, we have repeatedly held that district judges are entitled to insist on strict compliance with local rules designed to promote the clarity of summary judgment filings." (citing Ammons v. Aramark Uniform Serv., Inc., 368 F.3d 809, 817 (7th Cir. 2004)). Although pro se plaintiffs are entitled to lenient standards, compliance with procedural rules is required. Cady v. Sheahan, 467 F.3d 1057, 1061 (7th Cir. 2006); see also Koszola v. Bd. of Educ. of the City of Chicago, 385 F.3d 1104, 1108 (7th Cir. 2004). "We have... repeatedly held that a district court is entitled to expect strict compliance with Rule 56.1." Cichon v. Exelon Generation Co., 401 F.3d 803, 809 (7th Cir. 2005).

Despite the admonitions stated above, and ample opportunity to file a response, [1] Smith failed to file a response to either movants' statements of uncontested facts. Accordingly, the movants' statements of uncontested facts are deemed admitted.

II. Facts[2]

Smith was first incarcerated at the Northern Reception Classification Center ("NRC") and was then transferred to the Stateville Correctional Center during the time of the occurrences alleged in his second amended complaint. Michael P. Randle was the Director of the Illinois Department of Corrections ("IDOC") during the relevant time period. Nancy Pounovich was a Superintendent at the NRC during the relevant time period. Anthony Harris was a Lieutenant at either the NRC or Stateville during the relevant time period. Nicholas Gowdy was a Correctional Officer at Stateville and did not work at the NRC during the relevant time period. Mindi Pierce, Ovidiu Botan, Andrew Ellis, Kevin Doyle, Patrick Mulligan, and Orthello Hamilton were Correctional Officers at the NRC or Stateville during the relevant time period. Sandra Griffin was a sergeant at the NRC during the relevant time period. Marcus Hardy was the Warden of the NRC and Stateville at the relevant time period. Clay Roby was a Sergeant at Stateville during the relevant time period. Amy Gomez was a Counselor at the NRC during the relevant time period. James Rogers was a Correctional Officer at Stateville during the relevant time period. There are no allegations against Defendant Rogers in the second amended complaint. Darryl Carter was a Lieutenant at either the NRC or Stateville during the relevant time period. Andrea Bacot is a licensed practical nurse in Illinois. Bacot was employed by Wexford Health Sources, Inc., working at the NRC and Stateville during the relevant time period. Part of Bacot's responsibilities included distributing psychotropic medications to inmates in their cells at the NRC and Stateville.

Smith entered into IDOC custody through the NRC on July 9, 2010. That same day, he was examined by various medical staff members as part of a routine medical examination provided to all detainees when entering into IDOC custody. Smith informed a doctor that he sustained nerve damage and had been taking Neurontin to help manage his pain. He also told the doctor that he suffered from sleep apnea and had been sleeping with the assistance of a Continuous Airway Pressure ...


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.