United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Western Division
G. Reinhard Judge.
reasons stated below, defendants' motions for summary
judgment ;  are granted. Plaintiff's motion to
strike  and Dr. Dominguez's motion to strike  are
both denied. Civil case terminated.
matter arises out of plaintiff Sean Washington's Third
Amended Complaint against several healthcare professionals at
Dixon Correctional Center, Dr. Bessie Dominguez, Director of
Nursing Travis Hantke, and Nurse Lynn Chattic. See
. Plaintiff claims that Dr. Dominguez, Nurse Hantke, and
Nurse Chattic were deliberately indifferent to his medical
needs when he complained to them that his wheelchair, to
which he was confined, had a wobbly wheel. Plaintiff was
directed by several of the defendants to sign up for a
wheelchair repair clinic, but before the clinic took place
the wheel popped off his wheelchair and he suffered injuries.
Plaintiff claims 42 U.S.C. § 1983 deliberate
indifference against all parties, as well as related claims
under the Americans with Disability Act of 1990
(“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101.
11, 2016, Dr. Dominguez filed a motion for summary judgment
 and memorandum in support . Nurse Hantke and Nurse
Chattic also filed a joint motion for summary judgment 
and memorandum . All three defendants filed a joint Rule
56.1 statement of material facts .
September 27, 2016, plaintiff filed a motion to strike
defendants' Rule 56.1 statement and memorandum in
opposition to all defendants' motions for summary
judgment , as well as a response to the defendants'
56.1 statement [92-11], and statement of additional material
facts, which was later filed as a separate docket entry
October 18, 2016, Dr. Dominguez filed a reply and motion to
strike plaintiff's statement of additional facts .
Nurse Hantke and Nurse Chattic filed a joint reply . All
defendants filed a joint response to plaintiff's
statement of material facts . The foregoing matters are
now ripe for the court's review.
summary judgment, the court construes all facts and draws all
inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving
party. Schepers v. Commissioner, Indiana Dept. of
Corrections, 691 F.3d 909, 913 (7th Cir. 2012). The
court does not weigh evidence or determine the credibility of
witness testimony. O'Leary v. Accretive Health,
Inc., 657 F.3d 625, 630 (7th Cir. 2011). Instead, the
court only grants 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). That said, Rule 56 “mandates the
entry of summary judgment, after adequate time for discovery
and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing
sufficient to establish the existence of an element to that
party's case, and on which that party will bear the
burden of proof at trial.” Celotex Corp. v.
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986).
to addressing the merits of defendants' motion, it is
necessary to set forth the undisputed facts located in the
parties' Local Rule 56.1 Statements of Material Fact, as
well as plaintiff's version of relevant disputed facts.
In addition, the court is cognizant of its obligation to
construe all disputed and undisputed facts in the light most
favorable to plaintiff and does so accordingly. See
Schepers, 691 F.3d at 913.
parties' motions to strike.
noted, plaintiff has filed a motion to strike the
defendants' Rule 56.1 joint statement of undisputed
material facts, on the grounds that “Defendants have
blatantly failed to follow Local Rule 56.1's requirement
that each paragraph contain one or two individual
allegations.” See  at 4. Defendants
respond that each of their paragraphs are focused on a single
subject. The court has reviewed the relevant paragraphs and
agrees with defendants. As such, plaintiff's motion to
strike  is denied.
Dominguez has also filed a motion to strike plaintiff's
statement of additional facts, on the grounds that it was
submitted as an exhibit rather than a separate document and
did not include relevant citations to the record.
See  at 2. The court notes that plaintiff has
largely rectified these errors after being allowed by
Magistrate Judge Johnston to re-file his statement of