*

After examining the briefs and record, we have concluded that oral argument is

unnecessary.  Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and record.  See FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2).

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois  60604

Submitted October 14, 2010*

Decided October 18, 2010

Before

KENNETH F. RIPPLE, Circuit Judge

DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge

DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge

No. 10‐2071

RICHARD HOEFT,

Plaintiff‐Appellant,

v.

JOHN A. CLARK,

Defendant‐Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Western District of Wisconsin.

No. 3:09‐cv‐117‐wmc

William M. Conley,

Acting Chief Judge.

O R D E R

Richard Hoeft, a former Wisconsin prisoner, appeals the grant of summary judgment

for John Clark, the superintendent at Flambeau Correctional Institution, in this action under

42 U.S.C § 1983 alleging, among other things, that Clark denied him dental care in

retaliation for filing a petition for habeas corpus.  We affirm.

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with 

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
No. 10‐2071 Page 2

In his § 1983 action, Hoeft alleged that Clark knowingly denied him treatment for his

badly deteriorating teeth.  Hoeft, who filed at least eight lawsuits while confined at

Flambeau, claimed that Clark retaliated against him by preventing him from seeing a

dentist until he stopped making more legal work for the prison.  Hoeft also alleged his

dental condition was so severe that Clark’s conduct constituted deliberate indifference to a

serious medical need.

Clark eventually moved for summary judgment, and Hoeft did not file a brief in

opposition until ten days after the deadline for doing so had passed.  Clark moved to strike

Hoeft’s opposition materials as untimely.  District Judge Crabb granted Clark’s motion to

strike and his motion for summary judgment.  She concluded that no reasonable jury could

find Clark liable for retaliation or deliberate indifference because it was undisputed that

Clark did not know of Hoeft’s dental needs or determine whether he received treatment.

Moreover, Hoeft provided no evidence that his dental problems rose to the level of a serious

medical need.  The case was later reassigned to District Judge Conley, who entered

judgment for Clark.

On appeal Hoeft challenges only the grant of summary judgment on his retaliation

claim.  He takes issue, initially, with Judge Crabb’s decision to strike his filings as untimely.

He points to an affidavit (that he submitted in response to the motion to strike), in which he

asserted that he mailed the documents in timely fashion.  But Judge Crabb found the

affidavit likely to be false because the envelope in which it was mailed was postmarked

nine days after the filing deadline.  Hoeft does not dispute this finding.  Even a pro se

litigant like Hoeft must comply with the Rules of Civil Procedure.  See Cady v. Sheahan,

467 F.3d 1057, 1061 (7th Cir. 2006).  Given that Hoeft, an experienced litigant, has not

explained his failure to meet the filing deadline, the district judge did not abuse her

discretion in striking Hoeft’s summary‐judgment materials.  Id.; see also Lac du Flambeau

Indians v. Stop Treaty Abuse‐Wis., 991 F.2d 1249, 1257 (7th Cir. 1993) (“[A] ‘decision to

disregard all materials submitted after a reasonable filing deadline is certainly not an abuse

of discretion . . . .’” (emphasis added) (quoting Pfeil v. Rogers, 757 F.2d 850, 858 (7th Cir.

1985))).  

Hoeft also asserts without elaboration that Judge Crabb disregarded evidence in his

affidavit which, he believes, shows that Clark played a role in denying him dental care in

retaliation for filing his habeas petition.  In this affidavit Hoeft quotes language from his

complaint alleging that Clark told him that he was being denied dental care in retaliation

for his litigation efforts.  However, the affidavit—which was submitted along with his

materials opposing summary judgment—was properly struck as untimely, see Adams v. Wal‐

Mart Stores, Inc., 324 F.3d 935, 937 (7th Cir. 2003), and in any event, allegations in the
No. 10‐2071 Page 3

underlying pleadings cannot create an issue of fact to defeat summary judgment unless

supported by record evidence.  Burrell v. City of Mattoon, 378 F.3d 642, 648 (7th Cir. 2004).

As Judge Crabb explained, no evidence supports Hoeft’s retaliation claim.  Summary

judgment was properly granted.  Cady, 467 F.3d at 1061.

For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.