Ernst v. Mitchell

Full title: BRUNO ERNST, Plaintiff, v. JEROME MITCHELL, Defendant

Court: United States District Court, C.D. Illinois

Date published: Dec 5, 2006

No. 05-1080 (C.D. Ill. Dec. 5, 2006)

Opinion

No. 05-1080.

December 5, 2006

ORDER

HAROLD BAKER, District Judge

The plaintiff has not responded to Defendant Mitchell's Amended Motion for Summary Judgment (d/e 37). In fact, mail to the plaintiff has been returned has undeliverable, and Defendant has not been able to locate the plaintiff to obtain his signature to authorize release of his medical records.

Defendant's proposed facts are supported by the record and accepted as true, because the plaintiff has failed to respond. 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's 29, 38; Smith v. Lamz, 321 F.3d 680, 682-83 (7^th Cir. 2003), quoting Bordelon v. Chicago Sch. Reform Bd. of Trustees, 233 F.3d 524, 529 (7^th Cir. 2000) (. . . "[F]ailure to respond by the nonmovant as mandated by the local rules results in an admission. . . ." (citation omitted)).

Defendant's motion shows that he bears no personal responsibility for the medical treatment of which the plaintiff complains. Defendant was not the treating physician for that condition. Accordingly, summary judgment for Dr. Mitchell is mandated.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant Mitchell's amended motion for summary judgment is granted (d/e 37). The Clerk of the court is directed to enter judgment in favor of the defendant and against the plaintiff pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. The case is terminated, parties are to bear their own costs.