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.

Albitar v. Taylor

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois

July 6, 2015

Kamal Albitar, Plaintiff,
v.
C.R.W. Taylor, Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

JAMES B. ZAGEL, District Judge.

Plaintiff, Kamal Albitar, presently a prisoner at the Shawnee Correctional Center, brought this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims that Defendant, Corrections Counselor Harriet Taylor, was deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff's medical and dental needs. Defendant has moved for summary judgment. For the reasons stated below, Defendant's motion is granted.

Background

Consistent with the local rules, Defendant filed a Local Rule 56.1(a)(3) statement of undisputed facts and served Plaintiff a Local Rule 56.2 Notice, which explains in detail the requirements of Local Rule 56.1.

Local Rule 56.1(b)(3) requires that the opposing party's response to the movant's statement of undisputed facts must respond to each numbered paragraph and include specific references to supporting materials for those statements that are disputed. L.R. 56.1(b)(3)(B). In addition, the opposing party must submit their own statement of any additional facts that require denial of summary judgment, including references to supporting materials to support the additional statement of additional facts. L.R. 56.1(b)(3)(C).

Plaintiff failed to respond to Defendant's undisputed facts and he failed to submit his own statement of any additional facts that require denial of summary judgment.

Plaintiff's status as a pro se litigant does not excuse him from complying with Local Rule 56.1. See McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993) ("we have never suggested that procedural rules in ordinary civil litigation should be interpreted so as to excuse mistakes by those who proceed without counsel"); Coleman v. Goodwill Indus. of Se. Wis., Inc., 423 F.Appx. 642, 643 (7th Cir. 2011) ("Though courts are solicitous of pro se litigants, they may nonetheless require strict compliance with local rules."); Wilson v. Kautex, Inc., 371 F.Appx. 663, 664 (7th Cir. 2010) ("strictly enforcing Local Rule 56.1 was well within the district court's discretion, even though Wilson is a pro se litigant") (citations omitted); Cady v. Sheahan, 467 F.3d 1057, 1061 (7th Cir. 2006) ("even pro se litigants must follow rules of civil procedure"). Given Plaintiff's failure to comply with Local Rule 56.1(b), Defendants' Local Rule 56.1(a)(3) statement are deemed admitted. See N.D.Ill. L.R. 56.1(b)(3)(C) ("All material facts set forth in the statement required of the moving party will be deemed to be admitted unless controverted by the statement of the opposing party."); Keeton v. Morningstar, Inc., 667 F.3d 877, 880-81, 884 (7th Cir. 2012); Parra v. Neal, 614 F.3d 635, 636 (7th Cir. 2010); Rao v. BP Prods. N. Am., Inc., 589 F.3d 389, 393 (7th Cir. 2009); Ciomber v. Cooperative Plus, Inc., 527 F.3d 635, 643-44 (7th Cir. 2008) (affirming the district courts's refusal to consider plaintiff's Rule 56.1 response that did not comply with local rule); ( Raymond v. Ameritech Corp., 442 F.3d 600, 608 (7th Cir. 2006); Schrott v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 403 F.3d 940, 943-44 (7th Cir. 2005); Smith v. Lamz, 321 F.3d 680, 682-83 (7th Cir. 2003).

Based on the above, the pertinent facts are as follows:

Plaintiff was incarcerated at the Cook County Jail during the relevant time period. (Def.'s 56.1(a)(3) Statement ¶ 2.) Defendant Taylor was employed at Cook County Jail as a Correctional Rehabilitation Worker (CRW) during the relevant time period. ( Id., ¶ 4.)

Plaintiff entered Cook County Jail on June 14, 2013. (Def.'s 56.1(a)(3) Statement ¶ 5.) Upon entry, Plaintiff informed the Medical Department' of dental and back pain. ( Id., ¶ 6.) Plaintiff's back pain resulted from an injury he suffered in a car accident before being incarcerated. ( Id., ¶ 9.) Plaintiff's dental pain also began occurring before he had entered Cook County Jail. ( Id., ¶ 7.) Medical personnel provided Plaintiff with acetaminophen and two heat packs and informed Plaintiff that he would be seen by a doctor and a dentist. ( Id., ¶ 10.)

On July 10, 2013, Plaintiff submitted a grievance, assigned control number 2013X2473, stating that he informed medical staff upon entering Cook County Jail that he had a serious back injury and that he had not been seen by another medical professional since he arrived at the jail. (Def.'s 56.1(a)(3) Statement ¶¶ 21-22.) That same day, Plaintiff submitted a second grievance, assigned control number 2013X2474, stating that he informed medical staff upon entering Cook County Jail that he had tooth pain, that he was still experiencing tooth pain, and that he had not received paid medication or other dental treatment. ( Id., ¶¶ 23-24.)

Consistent with the grievance procedure, both grievances were received and processed by CRW Taylor on July 11, 2013. (Def.'s 56.1(a)(3) Statement ¶¶ 18, 25-28.) Consistent with the grievance procedure, CRW Taylor forwarded the grievances to Cook County Health and Hospital System (CCHHS) medical staff for a response to the grievance. ( Id., ¶¶ 16, 26, 28.)

Plaintiff received a response to Grievance 2013X2473 on August 1, 2013. (Def.'s 56.1(a)(3) Statement ¶ 29.) The response indicated that Plaintiff had been scheduled for a doctor's appointment on July 23, 2013. ( Id., ¶ 30.) Plaintiff appealed the response to the grievance, indicating that he had not been seen by a physician and had not received his medication. ( Id., ¶ 31.) However, Plaintiff was seen by medical staff on July 30, 2013, and received medication for his back pain. ( Id., ¶¶ 33, 35.) The response to Plaintiff's appeal indicated that he was seen by medical staff on July 30, 2013. ( Id., ¶ 32.)

Plaintiff also received a response to Grievance 2013X2474 that indicated that he had a dentist appointment scheduled for July 18, 2013, but he failed to appear for that appointment. (Def.'s 56.1(a)(3) Statement ¶ 37.) The response also indicated that Plaintiff had been rescheduled for a dental appointment on July 22, 2013. ( Id., ¶ 38.) On August 1, 2013, Plaintiff appealed this response, indicating that although he was seen by the dentist, he did not receive adequate treatment. ( Id., ¶ 39.) The response to Plaintiff's appeal indicated that he had received dental treatment on July 24, 2015, including being prescribed an antibiotic and that Plaintiff had refused the additional recommended treatment of ...


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.