Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Judges

JAMES HOUSTON, Plaintiff, v. DANIEL QUICK, Defendant.

ORDER

HAROLD BAKER, District Judge

The plaintiff has not responded to Defendant's summary judgment motion, which is thorough and well supported. Defendant's proposed facts are therefore accepted as true. See Central District of Illinois Local Rule 7.1(D)(2) (". . . [F]ailure to respond shall be deemed an admission of the motion [for summary judgment]."); Rule 56 Notice, d/e 30; Smith v. Lamz, 321 F.3d 680, 682-83 (7th Cir. 2003), quoting Bordelon v. Chicago Sch. Reform Bd. of Trustees, 233 F.3d 524, 529 (7th Cir. 2000) (. . . "[F]ailure to respond by the nonmovant as mandated by the local rules results in an admission. . . ." (citation omitted)). Those facts rule out any reasonable inference that Defendant Quick was deliberately indifferent to any serious medical needs of the plaintiff. Accordingly, summary judgment is mandated for Defendant on the merits.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant's Summary Judgment Motion is granted (d/e 29). The Clerk of the court is directed to enter judgment in favor of Defendant and against the plaintiff pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. The case is terminated, parties are to bear their own costs.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

HOUSTON v. QUICK
(Dec 5, 2006)