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.

Robles v. Spiller

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

May 29, 2019

LUIS ROBLES, Plaintiff,
v.
ELIJAH SPILLER, KAREN CLARK, JOHN WOLFE, KALE LIVELY, AMY WILLIAMS, NANCY KNOPE, MICHAEL SCOTT, CHRISTINE BROWN, and KAREN JAIMET Defendants.[[1]]

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          GILBERT C. SISON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Pending before the Court is the motion for summary judgment (Doc. 45) filed by Defendants Williams, Knope and Scott. Defendants argue that they are entitled to summary judgment because they were not deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff's knee injury. Specifically, Defendants maintain they provided Plaintiff with extensive medical care in assessing, diagnosing and treating his left leg injury since Plaintiff first presented to medical staff the day after the injury. As of this date, Plaintiff has failed to respond to the motion for summary judgment.

         This matter has been referred to United States Magistrate Judge Gilbert C. Sison by United States District Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(B) and (c), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and Local Rule 72.1(a). Based on the following, the undersigned recommends that the Court GRANT the motion for summary judgment.

         On September 7, 2017, Luis Robles, an inmate incarcerated at Pinckneyville Correction Center (“Pinckneyville”), filed suit for violations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1). Plaintiff claims that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to a serious medical condition, i.e., his knee injury, and that Defendant Wolfe discriminated against him on the basis of his racial/ethnic background. At threshold review, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court allowed three counts against Defendants Wolfe, Clark, Spiller, Lively, Williams, Knope, Scott and Brown to proceed (Doc. 5).

         On April 1, 2019, Defendants Williams, Knope and Scott filed their motion for summary judgment (Docs. 45 & 46). Along with the motion for summary judgment, Defendants filed the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 Notice (Doc. 47).[2] As stated before, Plaintiff has not responded to the motion and the time to respond to the motion has passed. The Court considers Plaintiff's failure to respond as an admission of the merits of the motion filed by Defendants Williams, Knope and Scott. See SDIL Local Rule 7.1(c); Smith v. Lamz, 321 F.3d 680, 683 (7th Cir. 2003). See also Flynn v. Sandahl, 58 F.3d 283, 288 (7th Cir. 1995)(noting that a failure to respond constitutes an admission that there are no undisputed material facts). Based on this admission, the Court finds that Defendants Williams, Knope and Scott were not deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff and that they are entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff's claims against them.

         For the foregoing reasons, it is RECOMMENDED that the Court GRANT Defendant Williams, Knope and Scott's April 1, 2019 motion for summary judgment (Doc. 45) and that the Court enter judgment in favor of Amy Williams, Nancy Knope and Michael Scott and against Luis Robles on Count 3. If Judge Rosenstengel adopts this recommendation, Plaintiff's remaining claims are Count 1 - Fourteenth Amendment claim against Defendant Wolfe for violating Plaintiff's right to equal protection and for refusing to summon medical assistance for Plaintiff's injured knee because he is Hispanic; Count 2 - Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against Wolfe, Clark, Spiller and Lively for failing to request medical treatment for Plaintiff's injured knee after being informed that he was unable to walk and was in severe pain; and Count 3 - Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against Brown for delaying treatment and failing to provide necessary medical care for Plaintiff's injured knee. Further, in the event the Court deems injunctive relief to be necessary, Warden Jaimet, the current warden of Pinckneyville, in her official capacity, remains a party.

         Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and SDIL-LR 73.1(b), the parties shall have fourteen (14) days after service of this Report and Recommendation to file written objections thereto. The failure to file a timely objection may result in the waiver of the right to challenge this Report and Recommendation before either the District Court or the Court of Appeals. See Snyder v. Nolen, 380 F.3d 279, 284 (7th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, Objections to this Report and Recommendation must be filed on or before June 17, 2019.

         IT IS SO ORDERDED.

---------

Notes:

[1] The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to change defendants' names on the docket sheet to reflect the correct names contained in the answers (Docs. 21, 23, 24 & 25).

[2] That notice, pursuant to Federal Rule of Procedure 56, Timms v. Frank, 953 F.2d 281 (7th Cir. 1992) and Lewis v. Faulkner, 689 F.2d 100 (7th Cir. 1982), informed/warned Plaintiff of the consequences of failing to ...


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.