United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Terre Haute Division
ENTRY GRANTING DEFENDANT ALUKER'S UNOPPOSED
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
R. SWEENEY II JUDGE
reasons explained in this Entry, the motion for summary
judgment filed by Dr. Michael Aluker, [dkt. 235], is
granted. The pending motion for summary
judgment filed by the other defendants in this action will be
discussed in a separate Entry to be issued as soon as
possible in light of the Court's pressing caseload.
Deangelo Gaines filed this civil rights action on April 25,
2016. At the time of filing, he was incarcerated at the
Putnamville Correctional Facility
(“Putnamville”). He filed an amended complaint on
July 18, 2016. Dkt. 11. The Court screened the amended
complaint and allowed claims to proceed against numerous
defendants, one of whom was Dr. Aluker. Mr. Gaines seeks
compensatory, punitive, and nominal damages.
specifically, Mr. Gaines alleges that he has a seizure
disorder but that from January 14, 2013, when he arrived at
Putnamville, until October of 2015, he was denied a helmet.
He alleges that his requests for a seizure helmet were denied
from April 2014 until June 2015 by, among others, Dr. Aluker.
Mr. Gaines was provided a seizure helmet in October of 2015.
Dr. Aluker is alleged to have been deliberately indifferent
to Mr. Gaines' serious medical needs.
Aluker seeks resolution of Mr. Gaines' claim against him
through the entry of summary judgment. Mr. Gaines has not
opposed the motion for summary judgment.
Summary Judgment Standards
purpose of summary judgment is to “pierce the pleadings
and to assess the proof to see whether there is a genuine
need for trial.” Matsushita Electric Industrial Co.
v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). Summary
judgment is appropriate when the movant shows that there is
no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the
movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). A “material fact” is one that
“might affect the outcome of the suit.”
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248
(1986). To survive a motion for summary judgment, the
non-moving party must set forth specific, admissible evidence
showing that there is a material issue for trial. Celotex
Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). The Court
views the record in the light most favorable to the
non-moving party and draws all reasonable inferences in that
party's favor. Darst v. Interstate Brands Corp.,
512 F.3d 903, 907 (7th Cir. 2008). It cannot weigh evidence
or make credibility determinations on summary judgment
because those tasks are left to the fact-finder.
O'Leary v. Accretive Health, Inc., 657 F.3d 625,
630 (7th Cir. 2011).
dispute about a material fact is genuine only “if the
evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a
verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson v.
Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). If no
reasonable jury could find for the non-moving party, then
there is no “genuine” dispute. Scott v.
Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007).
Aluker's motion for summary judgment, brief in support,
and Local Rule 56-1 notice were served on Mr. Gaines on or
about March 22, 2018. Dkt. nos. 235, 236, 237, 238. As noted,
even though Mr. Gaines requested one extension of time, no
response has been filed, and the deadline for doing so has
consequence of Mr. Gaines' failure to respond is that he
has conceded the defendant's version of the facts.
Smith v. Lamz, 321 F.3d 680, 683 (7th Cir. 2003)
(“[F]ailure to respond by the nonmovant as mandated by
the local rules results in an admission.”);
see S.D. Ind. Local Rule 56-1 (“A party
opposing a summary judgment motion must . . . file and serve
a response brief and any evidence . . . that the party relies
on to oppose the motion. The response must . . . identif[y]
the potentially determinative facts and factual disputes that
the party contends demonstrate a dispute of fact precluding
summary judgment.”). This does not alter the standard
for assessing a Rule 56(a) motion, but does “reduc[e]
the pool” from which the facts and inferences relative
to such a motion may be drawn. Smith v. Severn, 129
F.3d 419, 426 (7th Cir. 1997).
following facts, unopposed by Mr. Gaines and supported by