United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
MONTANA L. DRAPER, Plaintiff,
DR. ROBERTSON, Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT DR. ROBERTSON'S MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DIRECTING ENTRY OF FINAL
Jane Magnus-Stinson, Chief Judge United States District Court
Montana Draper, an inmate currently housed at Pendleton
Correctional Facility (Pendleton), filed this civil action
based on events that occurred while Mr. Draper was
incarcerated at New Castle Correctional Facility (New
Castle). Mr. Draper broke his hand on May 17, 2018, when he
punched a window. The claim remaining in this case is Mr.
Draper's claim that Dr. Robertson lied about his hand
being partially healed when Dr. Robertson saw him on June 13,
2018. Dr. Robertson seeks summary judgment arguing that Mr.
Draper failed to exhaust his available administrative
remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act
(PLRA), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), before filing this
lawsuit. Mr. Draper has not opposed the motion for summary
judgment. For the reasons explained below, the motion for
summary judgment is granted.
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 a judgment as a matter of law.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The party seeking summary
judgment “bears the initial responsibility of informing
the district court of the basis for its motion and
identifying” designated evidence which
“demonstrate[s] the absence of a genuine issue of
material fact.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477
U.S. 317, 323 (1986).
the moving party has met its burden, “the burden shifts
to the nonmoving party to ‘come forward with specific
facts showing that there is a genuine issue for
trial.'” Cincinnati Life Inc. Co. v.
Beyrer, 722 F.3d 939 (7th Cir. 2013) (quoting
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp.,
475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986)). A disputed fact is material if it
might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law.
Williams v. Brooks, 809 F.3d 936, 941-42 (7th Cir.
2016). “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)).
Draper failed to respond to the defendant's motion for
summary judgment, and the deadline for doing so has passed.
The consequence is that Mr. Draper has conceded the
defendant's version of the events. See 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.”). Because Mr. Draper failed to
respond to the defendant's motion, and thus failed to
comply with the Court's Local Rules regarding summary
judgment, the Court will not consider allegations in Mr.
Draper's complaint as evidence opposing the motion for
summary judgment. Although pro se filings are
construed liberally, pro se litigants such as Mr.
Draper are not exempt from procedural rules. See Pearle
Vision, Inc. v. Romm, 541 F.3d 751, 758 (7th Cir. 2008)
(noting that “pro se litigants are not excused from
compliance with procedural rules”); Members v.
Paige, 140 F.3d 699, 702 (7th Cir. 1998) (stating that
procedural rules “apply to uncounseled litigants and
must be enforced”). This does not alter the standard
for assessing a Rule 56 motion, but it 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 statement of facts was evaluated pursuant to the
standards set forth above. That is, this statement of facts
is not necessarily objectively true, but as the summary
judgment standard requires, the undisputed facts and the
disputed evidence are presented in the light reasonably most
favorable to Mr. Draper as the non-moving party with respect
to the motion for summary judgment. See Reeves v.
Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 150
times relevant to the claims in this case, Mr. Draper was an
inmate within the Indiana Department of Correction (IDOC).
The IDOC has an Offender Grievance Process which is intended
to permit inmates to resolve complaints relating to their
conditions of confinement before filing suit in court. All
inmates are made aware of the offender grievance process upon
their arrival at an IDOC institution and a copy of the
grievance process is available in the inmate handbook
provided to inmates and in the law libraries.
to the Grievance Process, an inmate must first attempt to
resolve his complaint informally. If the informal grievance
process is unsuccessful, the inmate must file a Level I
formal grievance with the Grievance Specialist. Once a
response is given to the Level I formal grievance, an inmate
may decide if the grievance has been satisfied. If the
decision made on a Level I formal grievance is not
satisfactory, the inmate may file a Level I appeal to the
Warden. If the inmate is not satisfied with the resolution of
the Level I appeal to the Warden, the inmate may then file a
Level II appeal to the Department Offender Grievance Manager.
Successful exhaustion of the grievance procedure by an inmate
includes timely pursuing each step or level of the informal
and formal process.
Draper has filed two grievances related to the incident on
June 13, 2018. First, on June 28, 2018, Mr. Draper filed a
grievance with the Grievance Specialist at New Castle
alleging that he did not receive proper medical treatment for
his fractured hand. This grievance was returned to Mr. Draper
because it was not filed timely.
Draper submitted another grievance on July 25, 2018, to the
Grievance Specialist at Pendleton. In this grievance, Mr.
Draper claims that he has been denied medical care and
subjected to pain and suffering. This grievance was returned
to Mr. Draper because it was incomplete and Mr. Draper had
not tried to informally resolve his complaint.
to the review completed by the Grievance Specialist at
Pendleton, Mr. Draper did not appeal either grievance. He
also did not attempt to file any additional grievances