United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
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
EVANS BARKER, JUDGE United States District Court
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.
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
Summary Judgment Standard
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).
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.
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).
following facts, unopposed by Mr. Rowe and supported by
admissible evidence, are accepted as true:
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,