United States District Court, N.D. Illinois
Joseph E. Tillman (R-40962), Plaintiff,
Daryl Edwards, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Charles R. Norgle, U.S. District Judge
Joseph Tillman, an Illinois prisoner at Menard Correctional
Center proceeding pro se, brought this 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 civil rights action against Stateville
Correctional Center Assistant Warden Darryl Edwards,
Stateville Internal Affairs Officer Mindi Pierce, and
Stateville Nurse Cynthia Garcia (collectively
"Defendants"). While confined at Stateville in
2011. Plaintiff broke his wrist. Defendants Edwards and
Garcia allegedly acted with deliberate indifference to
Plaintiffs need for medical attention by not sending him to
an emergency room the day of his injury and, in response to
Plaintiff preparing to sue Edwards and Garcia, Pierce
allegedly retaliated against Plaintiff by transferring him to
another facility. Currently before the Court are two motions
for summary judgment: one from Defendants Edwards and Pierce;
the other from Nurse Garcia. Plaintiff has responded to the
motions, but not to Defendants' joint N.D. 111. Local
Rule 56.1 Statement of Material Facts. For the reasons stated
herein, the Court grants Defendants' summary judgment
motions and dismisses this case.
SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD
judgment is appropriate "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); Jajeh v. County of Cook, 678
F.3d 560, 566 (7th Cir. 2012). To establish that a material
fact is undisputed, a party "must support the assertion
by . . . citing to particular parts of materials in the
record, including depositions, documents, electronically
stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations
. . . admissions, interrogatory answers, or other
materials." Rule 56(c)(1). Once the party moving for
summary judgment demonstrates the absence of a disputed issue
of material fact, "the burden shifts to the non-moving
party to provide evidence of specific facts creating a
genuine dispute." Carroll v. Lynch, 698 F.3d
561, 564 (7th Cir. 2012): Hannemann v. Southern Door
County School Dist., 673 F.3d 746, 751 (7th Cir. 2012).
"[T]he mere existence of some alleged factual
dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise
properly supported motion for summary judgment, " and
"[w]here the record taken as a whole could not lead a
rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party, there
is no 'genuine issue for trial.'" Scott v.
Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007) (citations omitted).
When considering the summary judgment record, the Court
"construe[s] all facts and draws all reasonable
inferences in favor of the nonmoving party." Van den
Bosch v. Raemisch, 658 F.3d 778, 785 (7th Cir. 2011).
citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S.
242, 255 (1986).
with this Court's local rules. Defendants jointly filed
one Local Rule 56.1(a)(3) statement of material facts with
their summary judgment motions. Doc. 161.). With certain
exceptions, the relevant factual assertions in the Local Rule
56.1(a)(3) statements cite evidentiary material in the record
and are supported by the cited material. See N.D.
111. L.R. 56.1(a) ("The statement referred to in (3)
shall consist of short numbered paragraphs, including within
each paragraph specific references to the affidavits, parts
of the record, and other supporting materials relied upon to
support the facts set forth in that paragraph."). Also
consistent with the local rules. Defendants provided
Plaintiff with a Local Rule 56.2 Notice, which explains how a
litigant must respond to the Rule 56.1 Statement and summary
judgment motion. Doc. 166.
Plaintiff responded to Defendants' memoranda of law in
support of their summary judgment motions, see doc.
172, he did not respond to their Local Rule 56.1(a)(3)
statements of facts in accordance with 56.1(b)(3)(B).
"Though courts are solicitous of pro se litigants, they
may nonetheless require strict compliance with local
rules." Coleman v. Goodwill Indus. of Se. Wis.,
Inc., 423 Fed.Appx. 642, 643 (7th Cir. 2011).
Defendants' Rule 56.1 factual statements are thus
unopposed and, to the extent they are supported by the
record, deemed admitted. See N.D. 111. 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."); Milton v. Slota, 697 Fed.Appx. 462,
464 (7th Cir. Sept. 25. 2017) (unpublished) ("the
[district] court was entitled to strictly enforce the local
rule, even against a pro se litigant, by deeming
uncontroverted statements of material fact admitted for the
purpose of deciding summary judgment").
district court may decide a summary judgment motion
"based on the factual record outlined in the [Local Rule
56.1] statements, " Koszola v. Bd. of Educ. of
Chi., 385 F.3d 1104, 1109 (7th Cir. 2004), the Court
will recite the facts in Defendants* Local Rule 56.1(a)(3)
statements, as modified where a statement inaccurately
characterizes the cited material, and then determine whether,
on those facts, Defendants are entitled to summary judgment.
29, 2011, while Plaintiff was incarcerated at Stateville. he
fell while playing basketball and broke his left wrist. Doc.
161 (Defs.* Statement of Facts) at ¶¶ 1. 6. At that
time, Cindy Garcia was a nurse at the prison, Darryl Edwards
was an assistant warden, and Mindi Pierce was an Internal
Affairs officer. Id. at ¶¶ 2-4.
minutes after the injury. Plaintiff attracted the attention
of a lieutenant who escorted Plaintiff to the
healthcare unit ("HCU"). Id. at ¶ 7.
Nurse Garcia and another nurse at the HCU sent Plaintiff for
x-rays within 15-20 minutes of his arrival. Id. at
¶¶ 8-9. Upon his return to the HCU, an individual
introduced himself as the head medical director of the
prison. Id. at ¶ 10. The medical director,
along with the nurses, examined Plaintiffs wrist and x-rays,
and informed him that his wrist was fractured. Id.
at ¶¶ 12-13. The doctor and Nurse Garcia
recommended that Plaintiff be taken to an emergency room. His
transport, however, was put on hold. Id. at ¶
14. A transfer of an inmate outside the facility requires
approval by a prison official. Id. at ¶ 15.
Warden Edwards came to the HCU and asked the medical director
if he could avoid incurring additional costs since two other
inmates were already scheduled to be sent to the emergency
room. Id. at ¶ 16. Plaintiff does not know who
stopped his transport, but it did not occur and he remained
at the prison. Id.
medical director, with Nurse Garcia" s assistance,
applied a splint, which consisted of a half cast covering the
top of Plaintiffs arm from his mid-forearm to his thumb,
secured with gauze. Id. at ¶¶ 17-18
(citing 161-2, Exh. A at 10). After the splint was applied.
Nurse Garcia examined the wrist and offered Plaintiff pain
medication, which he refused. Doc. 161 at ¶ 19. The
medical director then approved Plaintiffs return to his cell.
Id. at ¶ 20.
next morning, June 30, 2011, Plaintiff notified an officer
that he needed to return to the HCU. Thirty minutes later,
Plaintiff was taken there. Id. at ¶ 21 (citing
161-1, Exh. A, Compl. at 11-12 (the cited materials state
that Plaintiff was in horrible pain throughout the night and
asked every officer and nurse he saw (Nurse Garcia was not
one) to take him to the HCU).
HCU, Nurse Garcia informed him that he was scheduled to see
an outside specialist. She also gave him a blister pack of
pain medication at that time. Doc. 161 at ¶ 22.
1, 2011, Plaintiff saw an orthopedic specialist at Rezin
Orthopedics. Id. at ¶ 23. The July 1, 2011
office note from Rezin Orthopedics physician Dr. Paul Sauer
states the following:
PHYSICAL EXAMINATION: On examination, there is a splint. The
splint is removed. He has some swelling of the wrist. He has
tenderness over his distal radius. His neurovascular status
otherwise intact. No elbow tenderness. He has some pain with
gentle testing of supination and pronation.
IMAGING: Review of x-rays include hardcopy films brought in
by the patient shows a metaphyseal fracture of the left
distal radius and small ulnar styloid fracture, but overall
alignment appears to be acceptable. There appears to be no
extension of the articular surface.
PLAN: I recommend a long-arm cast, re-check in two weeks with
repeat x-rays of the left wrist which may be taken in the
cast AP and lateral before being seen. They are requesting a
bag to cover his left arm [so] that he could shower more
frequently because of the inability to use his hand for
routine hygiene. When he returns in two weeks, if the cast is
fitting well, we will repeat an ...