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.

Rowe v. Wexford of Indiana, LLC

United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division

May 14, 2019

LARRY ROWE, Plaintiff,
v.
WEXFORD OF INDIANA, LLC, PAUL A. TALBOT MD, ALEYCIA MCCULLOUGH, MONICA GIBSON RN, Defendants.

          LARRY ROWE PENDLETON - CF PENDLETON CORRECTIONAL FACILITY ELECTRONIC SERVICE PARTICIPANT - COURT ONLY DOUGLASS R. BITNER KATZ KORIN CUNNINGHAM, P.C. JEB ADAM CRANDALL BLEEKE DILLON CRANDALL ATTORNEYS LYUBOV GORE INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL NATHAN AARON PAGRYZINSKI BLEEKE DILLON CRANDALL, P.C. JORDAN MICHAEL STOVER INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL

          ENTRY GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF ALEYCIA MCCULLOUGH

          SARAH EVANS BARKER, JUDGE United States District Court

         I. Background

         Plaintiff Larry Rowe alleges in this civil rights action that on October 9, 2017, a portion of the ceiling of his dorm at Pendleton Correctional Facility (Pendleton) collapsed, striking him and causing injuries. Among other claims, Mr. Rowe alleges that Ms. Aleycia McCullough failed to adequately treat his injuries and denied his requests for additional treatment in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

         Ms. McCullough has moved for summary judgment and Mr. Rowe has not opposed the motion. For the reasons explained in this Entry, Ms. McCullough's unopposed motion for summary judgment, filed on February 8, 2019, must be granted.

         II. Summary Judgment Standard

         Summary judgment should be granted “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). “Material facts are those that might affect the outcome of the suit under applicable substantive law.” Dawson v. Brown, 803 F.3d 829, 833 (7th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation omitted). “A genuine dispute as to any material fact exists ‘if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.'” Daugherty v. Page, 906 F.3d 606, 609-10 (7th Cir. 2018) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986)). The Court views the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and all reasonable inferences are drawn in the non-movant's favor. Barbera v. Pearson Education, Inc., 906 F.3d 621, 628 (7th Cir. 2018).

         The motion for summary judgment, brief in support, and Local Rule 56-1 notice were served on Mr. Rowe on February 8, 2019. Dkt. Nos. 35, 36, 37. As noted, no response has been filed, and the deadline for doing so has long passed.

         The consequence of Mr. Rowe's 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(b) (“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 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).

         III. Discussion

         A. Undisputed Facts

         The following facts, unopposed by Mr. Rowe and supported by admissible evidence, are accepted as true:

         From June 2015, to April 1, 2017, Ms. McCullough worked for Corizon, LLC as the Health Services Administrator at Pendleton. On April 1, 2017, she moved to Kansas and has resided and been employed in Kansas since that date. She did not work at Pendleton in October 2017. She was not involved with Mr. Rowe's medical care after the October 9, 2017, incident.

         B. ...


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.