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.

Wright v. Obasi

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois

August 15, 2019

Jesse Wright, Jr. #M33345, Plaintiff,
v.
Ghaliah Obaisi, Independent Executor of the Estate of Saleh Obaisi, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          HON. JORGE ALONSO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Pro se Plaintiff Jesse Wright, who is presently a prisoner at Hill Correctional Center, brings this civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging deliberate indifference to a serious medical condition on the part of Dr. Obaisi[1] while Wright was incarcerated at Stateville Correctional Center. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (“Motion”) [61] is before the Court. For the reasons explained below, the Motion is granted.

         I. LEGAL STANDARD

         A. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56

          Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a), this Court “shall grant 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.” 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).

         In determining whether genuine factual issues exist, the court must view the evidence and draw all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. See Weber v. Univs. Research Ass'n, Inc., 621 F.3d 589, 592 (7th Cir.2010). The court does not “judge the credibility of the witnesses, evaluate the weight of the evidence, or determine the truth of the matter. The only question is whether there is a genuine issue of fact.” Gonzalez v. City of Elgin, 578 F.3d 526, 529 (7th Cir.2009). 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 essential 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).

         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). The non-movant must go beyond the allegations of his complaint and “set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Hannemann v. Southern Door County School Dist., 673 F.3d 746, 751 (7th Cir. 2012). A genuine issue of material fact exists only if there is evidence “to permit a jury to return a verdict for” the nonmoving party. Egonmwan v. Cook County Sheriff's Dept., 602 F.3d 845, 849 (7th Cir. 2010); Carroll, 698 F.3d at 564 (“[m]ere metaphysical doubt” about material facts is not enough).

         B. Northern District of Illinois Local Rule 56.1

          Local Rule 56.1(a)(3) requires the moving party to submit “a statement of material facts as to which the moving party contends there is no genuine issue and that entitle the moving party to judgment as a matter of law.” L.R. 56.1(a)(3). Each paragraph of the movant's statement of facts must include “specific references to the affidavits, parts of the record, and other supporting materials relied upon to support the facts set forth in that paragraph.” L.R. 56.1(a). The opposing party must file a concise response to the movant's statement and to each numbered paragraph in the moving party's statement, which response must include “in the case of any disagreement, specific references to the affidavits, parts of the record, and other supporting materials relied upon.” L.R. 56.1(b)(3)(B). In addition, the Local Rule provides for the opposing party to file “a statement, consisting of short numbered paragraphs, of any additional facts that require the denial of summary judgment, including references to the affidavits, parts of the record, and other supporting materials relied upon.” 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.” L.R. 56.1(b)(3)(C).

         In accordance with Local Rule 56.1(a)(3), Defendant filed a Statement of Material Facts [Dkt. 126]. As required by Local Rule 56.1(a), each of the factual assertions set out in the numbered paragraphs of Defendant's Statement of Material Facts cites evidentiary material in the record that supports the assertion. Pursuant to L.R. 56.2, Defendant filed and served on Wright a Notice that explains in detail the requirements of Local Rule 56.1 as well as the consequences of failing to comply with the Rule.

         Wright timely filed materials in opposition to Defendant's summary judgment submissions, but his filings do not include a response to Defendant's Statement of Material Facts as required by L.R. 56.1(b)(3)(B). Accordingly, the properly-supported facts set out in Defendant's Rule 56.1(a)(3) Statement of Facts are be deemed admitted. See L.R. 56.1(b)(3)(C); Curtis v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 807 F.3d 215, 218 (7th Cir. 2015) (“When a responding party's statement fails to dispute the facts set forth in the moving party's statement in the manner dictated by the rule, those facts are deemed admitted for purposes of the motion.”) (citation omitted); Rao v. BP Prods. N. Am., Inc., 589 F.3d 389, 393 (7th Cir. 2009) (“In accordance with [Local Rule 56.1(b)(3)(C) ], the district court justifiably deemed the factual assertions in BP's Rule 56.1(a) Statement in support of its motion for summary judgment admitted because Rao did not respond to the statement.”).

         II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

         The following uncontroverted facts from Defendant's Rule 56.1(a)(3) Statement of Material Facts are accepted as true for purposes of deciding Defendant's Motion.

         On July 9, 2015, Wright was admitted to Stateville Northern Reception Center (“Stateville NRC”) and a medical intake evaluation was conducted by D. Gregor Phelps, LPN. At that time, Wright self-reported a right inguinal hernia. (Dkt. 63, ¶ 9.) Over a year later, on August 7, 2016, Wright sought medical treatment for his hernia from the medical staff at Stateville. At this time, Wright was seen by a registered nurse who referred Mr. Wright to see a doctor. (Id., ¶ 10.) Wright was seen by a staff physician on August 11, 2016 and by Dr. Obaisi, the Stateville Medical Director, on August 16, 2016. (Id., ¶ 11.) Dr. Obaisi diagnosed Wright with a reducible right inguinal hernia, ordered a hernia truss, and ordered that Wright follow up with Dr. Obaisi in three months. (Id.) A hernia belt/truss is designed to keep the contents ...


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.