United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
OPINION AND ORDER
SARA L. ELLIS, District Judge.
Nathan Pack, an inmate at Lincoln Correctional Center, has brought this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pack contends that Defendant Correctional Medical Technician Dalfanita Moore subjected him to deliberate indifference to a serious medical condition in violation of his constitutional rights. Moore filed a motion for summary judgment  on all of Pack's claims. Because Pack failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and, even if he had, cannot demonstrate that Moore acted with deliberate indifference, the motion for summary judgment is granted.
I. Compliance with Local Rule 56.1
Moore filed a statement of uncontested material facts pursuant to Local Rule 56.1. Together with her motion for summary judgment, Moore included a "Notice to Pro Se Litigant Opposing Motion for Summary Judgment, " as required by Local Rule 56.2. That notice clearly explained the requirements of the Local Rules and warned Pack 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 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) numbered paragraphs, each corresponding to and stating a concise summary of the paragraphs to which it is directed, and
(B) 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
(C) 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 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." Although pro se plaintiffs are often given leniency, compliance with procedural rules is required. Cady v. Sheahan, 467 F.3d 1057, 1061 (7th Cir. 2006). "[W]e 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, 809-810 (7th Cir. 2005) (quotation marks and citation omitted).
Despite the admonitions stated above, and despite ample opportunity to do so, Pack failed to file a response to Moore's statement of uncontested facts or even a responsive brief. A motion for summary judgment "requires the responding party to come forward with the evidence that it has-it is the put up or shut up' moment in a lawsuit." Eberts v. Goderstad, 569 F.3d 757, 767 (7th Cir. 2009) (quotation marks and ...