Source: http://in.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180320_0000363.NIN.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 22:49:02+00:00

Document:
PORTER COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, et al., Defendants.
Randy M. Swisher, pro se, submitted a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 while he was incarcerated. He was granted leave to proceed against Dr. Madir H. Al-Shami, Sheriff David Lain, and Warden John Widup in their individual capacities for compensatory and punitive damages for denying him medical treatment for his hernia, back pain, sinus headaches, foot pain, and post-traumatic stress disorder caused by his reaction to skin cancer and surgeries while he was housed at the Porter County Jail in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. He was also granted leave to proceed against the Porter County Sheriff's Department and Advanced Correctional Healthcare Corporation for compensatory and punitive damages for having policies which preclude treatment of a non-life-threatening hernia, treatment of inmates by non-jail doctors, prescription of over-the-counter pain medications, and issuing two mattresses to an inmate while he was housed at the Porter County Jail in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Sheriff David Lain, Warden John Widup, and Porter County Sheriff's Department (Porter County Defendants) filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF 338.) Dr. Madir H. Al-Shami and Advanced Correctional Healthcare Corporation (Medical Defendants) have also filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF 331.) Both summary judgment motions were accompanied by notices (ECF 333 and 340), as required by N.D. Ind. L.R. 56.1(f), which informed Swisher of the importance of responding. Swisher has responded to each of the motions, and the defendants have replied. For the following reasons, the court grants both summary judgment motions.
Summary judgment must be granted when “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a). A genuine issue of material fact exists when “the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). Not every dispute between the parties makes summary judgment inappropriate; “[o]nly disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment.” Id. To determine whether a genuine issue of material fact exists, the court must construe all facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and draw all reasonable inferences in that party's favor. Ogden v. Atterholt, 606 F.3d 355, 358 (7th Cir. 2010). A party opposing a properly supported summary judgment motion may not rely merely on allegations or denials in his or her own pleading, but rather must “marshal and present the court with the evidence she contends will prove her case.” Goodman v. Nat'l Sec. Agency, Inc., 621 F.3d 651, 654 (7th Cir. 2010). If the nonmoving party does not establish the existence of an essential element on which that party bears the burden of proof at trial, summary judgment is proper. Massey v. Johnson, 457 F.3d 711, 716 (7th Cir. 2006). Summary judgment “is the put up or shut up moment in a lawsuit ....” Springer v. Durflinger, 518 F.3d 479, 484 (7th Cir. 2008).

References: § 1983
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.