noting that a failure to respond constitutes an admission that there are no undisputed material facts
How later courts described this case
- noting that a failure to respond constitutes an admission that there are no undisputed material facts
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
ROBERT INGERSOLL, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) Case No. 3:18-cv-1685-GCS
vs. )
)
)
VIPIN SHAH, )
)
Defendant. )
MEMORANDUM and ORDER
SISON, Magistrate Judge:
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Shah’s December 20, 2019
motion for summary judgment based on Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative
remedies (Docs. 32, 33). Along with the motion for summary judgment, Defendant filed
the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 Notice (Doc. 34).1 As of this date, Ingersoll has
failed to respond to the motion for summary judgment. Based on the following, the Court
GRANTS the motion for summary judgment.
On September 4, 2018, Robert Ingersoll, a former inmate incarcerated at Robinson
Correctional Center (“Robinson”), filed suit for violations of his constitutional rights
1 That notice, pursuant to Federal Rule of Procedure 56, Timms v. Frank, 953 F.2d 281 (7th Cir. 1992)
and Lewis v. Faulkner, 689 F.2d 100 (7th Cir. 1982), informed/warned Ingersoll of the consequences of failing
to respond to the motion for summary judgment.
Page 1 of 3
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1). At threshold review, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A,
the Court allowed Ingersoll to proceed on one claim against Shah for deliberate
indifference to a serious medical need when treating Ingersoll’s rheumatoid arthritis and
associated pain (Doc. 11).
On December 20, 2019, Defendant Shah moved for summary judgment based on
Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Specifically, Shah argues that the
records show that Ingersoll’s appeal to the Administrative Review Board (“ARB”) was
procedurally rejected as improper because Ingersoll did not provide the date of the
incident for the ARB to review. As stated before, Ingersoll has not responded to the
motion despite being warned through Defendant’s Rule 56 Notice, and the time to
respond to the motion has passed. The Court considers Ingersoll’s failure to respond as
an admission of the merits of the motion filed by Defendant Shah. See SDIL Local Rule
7.1(c); Smith v. Lamz, 321 F.3d 680, 683 (7th Cir. 2003). See also Flynn v. Sandahl, 58 F.3d 283,
288 (7th Cir. 1995)(noting that a failure to respond constitutes an admission that there are
no undisputed material facts). Based on this admission, the Court finds that Ingersoll did
not fully exhaust his administrative remedies as to his claim against Defendant Shah in
this case.
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion for summary judgment (Doc. 32).
Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Shah are DISMISSED without prejudice. The Court
DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to close the case. Plaintiff Robert Ingersoll shall recover
Page 2 of 3
nothing.
IT SO ORDERDED. Digitally signed by
Magistrate Judge
Date: January 30, 2020. ting SJ, Gilbert C. Sison
Date: 2020.01.30
09:34:54 -06'00'
GILBERT C. SISON
United States Magistrate Judge
Page 3 of 3